-
Journal of Clinical Periodontology Jul 2020To compare the adjunctive effects of lasers or antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) to non-surgical mechanical instrumentation alone in untreated periodontitis... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Adjunctive laser or antimicrobial photodynamic therapy to non-surgical mechanical instrumentation in patients with untreated periodontitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
AIM
To compare the adjunctive effects of lasers or antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) to non-surgical mechanical instrumentation alone in untreated periodontitis patients.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Two focused questions were addressed using the Population, Intervention, Comparison and Outcome criteria as follows: in patients with untreated periodontitis, (a) does laser application provide adjunctive effects on probing pocket depth (PPD) changes compared with non-surgical instrumentation alone? and (b) does application of aPDT provide adjunctive effects on PPD changes compared with non-surgical instrumentation alone? Both randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) were included. Results of the meta-analysis are expressed as weighted mean differences (WMD) and reported according to the PRISMA guidelines.
RESULTS
Out of 1,202 records, 10 articles for adjunctive laser and 8 for adjunctive aPDT were included. With respect to PPD changes, 1 meta-analysis including 2 articles (total n = 42; split-mouth design) failed to identify a statistically significant difference (WMD = 0.35 mm; 95%CI: -0.04/0.73; p = .08) in favour of adjunctive aPDT (wavelength range 650-700 nm). In terms of adjunctive laser application, a high variability of clinical outcomes at 6 months was noted. Two articles included patient-reported outcomes and 10 reported on the presence/absence of harms/adverse effects.
CONCLUSIONS
Available evidence on adjunctive therapy with lasers and aPDT is limited by (a) the low number of controlled studies and (b) the heterogeneity of study designs. Patient-reported benefits remain to be demonstrated.
Topics: Anti-Infective Agents; Chronic Periodontitis; Dental Scaling; Humans; Lasers; Photochemotherapy; Root Planing
PubMed: 31859395
DOI: 10.1111/jcpe.13236 -
Trials Jan 2020Periodontal diseases are regarded as the most common diseases of mankind. The prevalence rate of periodontal disease assumes a clear growth tendency, increasing by 57.3%...
Clinical evaluation of ultrasonic subgingival debridement versus ultrasonic subgingival scaling combined with manual root planing in the treatment of periodontitis: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.
BACKGROUND
Periodontal diseases are regarded as the most common diseases of mankind. The prevalence rate of periodontal disease assumes a clear growth tendency, increasing by 57.3% from 1990 to 2010. Thereby, effective periodontal therapy is still a long-term task and a difficult problem. The goals of periodontal therapy are to eliminate the infectious and inflammatory processes of periodontal diseases. Root planing, in order to eliminate the "infected cementum," has been an important step in the treatment of periodontitis since the 1970s. However, along with the understanding of the effects of endotoxin on the root surface, the necessity of manual root planing has been gradually queried. Ultrasonic instruments, which are more recent innovations, would not remove the cementum excessively, and are also more time-saving and labor-saving compared to using hand instruments. Hence, an increasing number of dentists prefer to do scaling with ultrasonic instruments only. However, the necessity of root planing remains emphasized in the international mainstream views of periodontal mechanical treatment. Therefore, this study is devoted to compare the clinical effect of ultrasonic subgingival debridement and ultrasonic subgingival scaling combined with manual root planing, which takes the implementation of root planing as the only variable and is more in line with the current clinical situation, thus hoping to provide some valuable reference to dentists.
METHODS/DESIGN
Forty adult patients who fit the inclusion criteria are being recruited from the Peking University Hospital of Stomatology (Beijing, China). By means of randomization tables, one quadrant of the upper and lower teeth is the test group and the other is the control group. Test group: ultrasonic subgingival scaling combined with manual root planing.
CONTROL GROUP
ultrasonic subgingival debridement. In a 24-week follow-up period, plaque index, probing depth, clinical attachment loss, bleeding index, furcation involvement, mobility, and patient-reported outcome (Visual Analog Scale for pain and sensitivity) will be observed and documented.
DISCUSSION
This study evaluates the effectiveness of ultrasonic subgingival scaling combined with manual root planing and ultrasonic subgingival debridement alone in the nonsurgical treatment of periodontitis with a split-mouth design after 1, 3 and 6 months. The result of the trial should potentially contribute to an advanced treatment strategy for periodontitis with an ideal clinical outcome.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), ID: ChiCTR1800017122. Registered on 12 July 2018.
Topics: Combined Modality Therapy; Dental Scaling; Humans; Periodontal Debridement; Periodontitis; Root Planing; Ultrasonic Therapy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 31992331
DOI: 10.1186/s13063-019-4031-y -
Journal of Clinical Periodontology Oct 2018This randomized placebo-controlled clinical trial evaluated the effect of Bifidobacterium animalis subsp. lactis (B. lactis) HN019-containing probiotic lozenges as... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
AIM
This randomized placebo-controlled clinical trial evaluated the effect of Bifidobacterium animalis subsp. lactis (B. lactis) HN019-containing probiotic lozenges as adjuvant to scaling and root planing (SRP) in patients with generalized chronic periodontitis.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Forty-one chronic periodontitis patients were recruited and monitored clinically, immunologically, and microbiologically at baseline (before SRP) and 30 and 90 days after SRP. All patients were randomly assigned to a Test (SRP + Probiotic, n = 20) or Control (SRP + Placebo, n = 21) group. The probiotic lozenges were used twice a day for 30 days. The data were statistically analysed.
RESULTS
The Test group presented a decrease in probing pocket depth and a clinical attachment gain significantly higher than those of the Control group at 90 days. The Test group also demonstrated significantly fewer periodontal pathogens of red and orange complexes, as well as lower proinflammatory cytokine levels when compared to the Control group. Only the Test group showed an increase in the number of B. lactis HN019 DNA copies on subgingival biofilm at 30 and 90 days.
CONCLUSION
The use of B. lactis HN019 as an adjunct to SRP promotes additional clinical, microbiological, and immunological benefits in the treatment of chronic periodontitis (NCT03408548).
Topics: Bifidobacterium; Chronic Periodontitis; Dental Scaling; Humans; Probiotics; Root Planing
PubMed: 30076613
DOI: 10.1111/jcpe.12995 -
Journal of Clinical Periodontology Dec 2022To present the 20-year clinical outcomes of tissue-level implants in partially edentulous patients previously treated for periodontitis and in periodontally healthy...
AIM
To present the 20-year clinical outcomes of tissue-level implants in partially edentulous patients previously treated for periodontitis and in periodontally healthy patients (PHP).
MATERIAL AND METHODS
The original population consisted of 149 partially edentulous patients consecutively enrolled in a private specialist practice and divided into three groups: PHP, moderately periodontally compromised patients (mPCP) and severely PCP (sPCP). After successful completion of periodontal/implant therapy, patients were enrolled in an individualized supportive periodontal care (SPC) programme.
RESULTS
Eighty-four patients rehabilitated with 172 implants reached the 20-year examination. During the observation time, 12 implants were removed (i.e., 11 due to biological complications and 1 due to implant fracture), leading to an overall implant survival rate of 93% (i.e., 94.9% for PHP, 91.8% for mPCP and 93.1% for sPCP [p = .29]). At 20 years, PCP compliant with SPC did not present with significantly higher odds of implant loss compared with PHP compliant with SPC (p > .05). Conversely, PCP not compliant with SPC experienced implant loss with odds ratio of 14.59 (1.30-164.29, p = .03).
CONCLUSIONS
Tissue-level implants, placed after comprehensive periodontal therapy and SPC, yield favourable long-term results. However, patients with a history of periodontitis and non-compliant with SPC are at higher risk of biological complications and implant loss.
Topics: Humans; Dental Implants; Prospective Studies; Dental Restoration Failure; Periodontitis; Alveolar Bone Loss
PubMed: 36054302
DOI: 10.1111/jcpe.13716 -
International Journal of Dental Hygiene Nov 2019To evaluate the results of active non-surgical treatment in patients diagnosed with adult periodontitis treated in a specialized clinic for periodontology.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the results of active non-surgical treatment in patients diagnosed with adult periodontitis treated in a specialized clinic for periodontology.
MATERIAL & METHODS
In total, 1182 patients with adult periodontitis received active non-surgical therapy, which involved professional oral hygiene instruction, scaling and root planing, supragingival polishing and elective systemic antimicrobial medication. The results of this therapy were based on a full-mouth periodontal chart as assessed at the time of evaluation. Successful treatment as periodontal pocket depth (PPD) ≤5 mm was the main outcome parameter with bleeding on pocket probing as secondary outcome. Patient-related factors such as smoking and severity of periodontitis at baseline and site-related factors such as tooth type, furcation involvement and endodontic treatment were analysed. Possible relations with assessed parameters and the success of active periodontal therapy were evaluated.
RESULTS
Overall 39% of the patients reached the successful treatment objective and a mean bleeding on pocket probing tendency of 14%. Treatment success appeared to be dependent on tooth type where the results at single-rooted front teeth (85%) and premolar teeth (78%) were more successful than at molar teeth (47%). Analysis revealed that in 55% of the cases furcation involvement at molars was associated with the absence of success. Endodontic treatment was associated with absence of success in 8%-11% of the cases. Smoking negatively influences successful treatment outcome (P < 0.001).
CONCLUSION
Active non-surgical periodontal therapy in patients with adult periodontitis resulted in approximately one third of the cases in the success endpoint of PPD ≤ 5mm. Sub-analysis showed that the outcome appeared to be dependent on tooth type, furcation involvement, severity of periodontal disease at intake and smoking status.
Topics: Adult; Chronic Periodontitis; Dental Scaling; Follow-Up Studies; Humans; Periodontal Index; Retrospective Studies; Root Planing; Tooth Loss; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 30942938
DOI: 10.1111/idh.12399 -
Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) Mar 2021Periodontitis is among the most common health conditions and represents a major public health issue related to increasing prevalence and seriously negative socioeconomic... (Review)
Review
Periodontitis is among the most common health conditions and represents a major public health issue related to increasing prevalence and seriously negative socioeconomic impacts. Periodontitis-associated low-grade systemic inflammation and its pathological interplay with systemic conditions additionally raises awareness on the necessity for highly performant strategies for the prevention and management of periodontitis. Periodontal diagnosis is the backbone of a successful periodontal strategy, since prevention and treatment plans depend on the accuracy and precision of the respective diagnostics. Periodontal diagnostics is still founded on clinical and radiological parameters that provide limited therapeutic guidance due to the multifactorial complexity of periodontal pathology, which is why biomarkers have been introduced for the first time in the new classification of periodontal and peri-implant conditions as a first step towards precision periodontics. Since the driving forces of precision medicine are represented by biomarkers and machine learning algorithms, with the lack of periodontal markers validated for diagnostic use, the implementation of a precision medicine approach in periodontology remains in the very initial stage. This narrative review elaborates the unmet diagnostic needs in periodontal diagnostics, the concept of precision periodontics, periodontal biomarkers, and a roadmap toward the implementation of a precision medicine approach in periodontal practice.
Topics: Dental Care; Humans; Periodontal Diseases; Periodontics; Periodontitis; Precision Medicine
PubMed: 33802358
DOI: 10.3390/medicina57030233 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2018Periodontitis is a bacterially-induced, chronic inflammatory disease that destroys the connective tissues and bone that support teeth. Active periodontal treatment aims... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Periodontitis is a bacterially-induced, chronic inflammatory disease that destroys the connective tissues and bone that support teeth. Active periodontal treatment aims to reduce the inflammatory response, primarily through eradication of bacterial deposits. Following completion of treatment and arrest of inflammation, supportive periodontal therapy (SPT) is employed to reduce the probability of re-infection and progression of the disease; to maintain teeth without pain, excessive mobility or persistent infection in the long term, and to prevent related oral diseases.According to the American Academy of Periodontology, SPT should include all components of a typical dental recall examination, and importantly should also include periodontal re-evaluation and risk assessment, supragingival and subgingival removal of bacterial plaque and calculus, and re-treatment of any sites showing recurrent or persistent disease. While the first four points might be expected to form part of the routine examination appointment for periodontally healthy patients, the inclusion of thorough periodontal evaluation, risk assessment and subsequent treatment - normally including mechanical debridement of any plaque or calculus deposits - differentiates SPT from routine care.Success of SPT has been reported in a number of long-term, retrospective studies. This review aimed to assess the evidence available from randomised controlled trials (RCTs).
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effects of supportive periodontal therapy (SPT) in the maintenance of the dentition of adults treated for periodontitis.
SEARCH METHODS
Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 8 May 2017), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library, 2017, Issue 5), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 8 May 2017), and Embase Ovid (1980 to 8 May 2017). The US National Institutes of Health Trials Registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating SPT versus monitoring only or alternative approaches to mechanical debridement; SPT alone versus SPT with adjunctive interventions; different approaches to or providers of SPT; and different time intervals for SPT delivery.We excluded split-mouth studies where we considered there could be a risk of contamination.Participants must have completed active periodontal therapy at least six months prior to randomisation and be enrolled in an SPT programme. Trials must have had a minimum follow-up period of 12 months.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened search results to identify studies for inclusion, assessed the risk of bias in included studies and extracted study data. When possible, we calculated mean differences (MDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for continuous variables. Two review authors assessed the quality of evidence for each comparison and outcome using GRADE criteria.
MAIN RESULTS
We included four trials involving 307 participants aged 31 to 85 years, who had been previously treated for moderate to severe chronic periodontitis. Three studies compared adjuncts to mechanical debridement in SPT versus debridement only. The adjuncts were local antibiotics in two studies (one at high risk of bias and one at low risk) and photodynamic therapy in one study (at unclear risk of bias). One study at high risk of bias compared provision of SPT by a specialist versus general practitioner. We did not identify any RCTs evaluating the effects of SPT versus monitoring only, or of providing SPT at different time intervals, or that compared the effects of mechanical debridement using different approaches or technologies.No included trials measured our primary outcome 'tooth loss'; however, studies evaluated signs of inflammation and potential periodontal disease progression, including bleeding on probing (BoP), clinical attachment level (CAL) and probing pocket depth (PPD).There was no evidence of a difference between SPT delivered by a specialist versus a general practitioner for BoP or PPD at 12 months (very low-quality evidence). This study did not measure CAL or adverse events.Due to heterogeneous outcome reporting, it was not possible to combine data from the two studies comparing mechanical debridement with or without the use of adjunctive local antibiotics. Both studies found no evidence of a difference between groups at 12 months (low to very low-quality evidence). There were no adverse events in either study.The use of adjunctive photodynamic therapy did not demonstrate evidence of benefit compared to mechanical debridement only (very low-quality evidence). Adverse events were not measured.The quality of the evidence is low to very low for these comparisons. Future research is likely to change the findings, therefore the results should be interpreted with caution.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Overall, there is insufficient evidence to determine the superiority of different protocols or adjunctive strategies to improve tooth maintenance during SPT. No trials evaluated SPT versus monitoring only. The evidence available for the comparisons evaluated is of low to very low quality, and hampered by dissimilarities in outcome reporting. More trials using uniform definitions and outcomes are required to address the objectives of this review.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Chronic Periodontitis; Dental Plaque; Humans; Middle Aged; Periodontal Debridement; Periodontics; Photochemotherapy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Tooth Loss
PubMed: 29291254
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009376.pub2 -
Trials Jul 2019Periodontal intrabony defects are usually treated surgically with the aim of increasing attachment and bone levels and reducing risk of progression. However, recent...
BACKGROUND
Periodontal intrabony defects are usually treated surgically with the aim of increasing attachment and bone levels and reducing risk of progression. However, recent studies have suggested that a minimally invasive non-surgical therapy (MINST) leads to considerable clinical and radiographic defect depth reductions in intrabony defects. The aim of this study is to compare the efficacy of a modified MINST approach with a surgical approach (modified minimally invasive surgical therapy, M-MIST) for the treatment of intrabony defects.
METHODS
This is a parallel-group, single-centre, examiner-blind non-inferiority randomised controlled trial with a sample size of 66 patients. Inclusion criteria are age 25-70, diagnosis of periodontitis stage III or IV (grades A to C), presence of ≥ 1 'intrabony defect' with probing pocket depth (PPD) > 5 mm and intrabony defect depth ≥ 3 mm. Smokers and patients who received previous periodontal treatment to the study site within the last 12 months will be excluded. Patients will be randomly assigned to either the modified MINST or the M-MIST protocol and will be assessed up to 15 months following initial therapy. The primary outcome of the study is radiographic intrabony defect depth change at 15 months follow-up. Secondary outcomes are PPD and clinical attachment level change, inflammatory markers and growth factors in gingival crevicular fluid, bacterial detection, gingival inflammation and healing (as measured by geometric thermal camera imaging in a subset of 10 test and 10 control patients) and patient-reported outcomes.
DISCUSSION
This study will produce evidence about the clinical efficacy and potential applicability of a modified MINST protocol for the treatment of periodontal intrabony defects, as a less invasive alternative to the use of surgical procedures.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03797807. Registered on 9 January 2019.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Alveolar Bone Loss; Dental Scaling; Equivalence Trials as Topic; Female; Guided Tissue Regeneration, Periodontal; Humans; London; Male; Middle Aged; Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures; Periodontal Debridement; Periodontitis; Root Planing; Severity of Illness Index; Surgical Flaps; Time Factors; Treatment Outcome; Young Adult
PubMed: 31351492
DOI: 10.1186/s13063-019-3544-8 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2020Systemic antimicrobials can be used as an adjunct to mechanical debridement (scaling and root planing (SRP)) as a non-surgical treatment approach to manage... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Systemic antimicrobials can be used as an adjunct to mechanical debridement (scaling and root planing (SRP)) as a non-surgical treatment approach to manage periodontitis. A range of antibiotics with different dosage and combinations are documented in the literature. The review follows the previous classification of periodontitis as all included studies used this classification.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of systemic antimicrobials as an adjunct to SRP for the non-surgical treatment of patients with periodontitis.
SEARCH METHODS
Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases to 9 March 2020: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase. The US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which involved individuals with clinically diagnosed untreated periodontitis. Trials compared SRP with systemic antibiotics versus SRP alone/placebo, or with other systemic antibiotics.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We selected trials, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias in duplicate. We estimated mean differences (MDs) for continuous data, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 45 trials conducted worldwide involving 2664 adult participants. 14 studies were at low, 8 at high, and the remaining 23 at unclear overall risk of bias. Seven trials did not contribute data to the analysis. We assessed the certainty of the evidence for the 10 comparisons which reported long-term follow-up (≥ 1 year). None of the studies reported data on antimicrobial resistance and patient-reported quality of life changes. Amoxicillin + metronidazole + SRP versus SRP in chronic/aggressive periodontitis: the evidence for percentage of closed pockets (MD -16.20%, 95% CI -25.87 to -6.53; 1 study, 44 participants); clinical attachment level (CAL) (MD -0.47 mm, 95% CI -0.90 to -0.05; 2 studies, 389 participants); probing pocket depth (PD) (MD -0.30 mm, 95% CI -0.42 to -0.18; 2 studies, 389 participants); and percentage of bleeding on probing (BOP) (MD -8.06%, 95% CI -14.26 to -1.85; 2 studies, 389 participants) was of very low certainty. Only the results for closed pockets and BOP showed a minimally important clinical difference (MICD) favouring amoxicillin + metronidazole + SRP. Metronidazole + SRP versus SRP in chronic/aggressive periodontitis: the evidence for percentage of closed pockets (MD -12.20%, 95% CI -29.23 to 4.83; 1 study, 22 participants); CAL (MD -1.12 mm, 95% CI -2.24 to 0; 3 studies, 71 participants); PD (MD -1.11 mm, 95% CI -2.84 to 0.61; 2 studies, 47 participants); and percentage of BOP (MD -6.90%, 95% CI -22.10 to 8.30; 1 study, 22 participants) was of very low certainty. Only the results for CAL and PD showed an MICD favouring the MTZ + SRP group. Azithromycin + SRP versus SRP for chronic/aggressive periodontitis: we found no evidence of a difference in percentage of closed pockets (MD 2.50%, 95% CI -10.19 to 15.19; 1 study, 40 participants); CAL (MD -0.59 mm, 95% CI -1.27 to 0.08; 2 studies, 110 participants); PD (MD -0.77 mm, 95% CI -2.33 to 0.79; 2 studies, 110 participants); and percentage of BOP (MD -1.28%, 95% CI -4.32 to 1.76; 2 studies, 110 participants) (very low-certainty evidence for all outcomes). Amoxicillin + clavulanate + SRP versus SRP for chronic periodontitis: the evidence from 1 study, 21 participants for CAL (MD 0.10 mm, 95% CI -0.51 to 0.71); PD (MD 0.10 mm, 95% CI -0.17 to 0.37); and BOP (MD 0%, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.09) was of very low certainty and did not show a difference between the groups. Doxycycline + SRP versus SRP in aggressive periodontitis: the evidence from 1 study, 22 participants for CAL (MD -0.80 mm, 95% CI -1.49 to -0.11); and PD (MD -1.00 mm, 95% CI -1.78 to -0.22) was of very low certainty, with the doxycycline + SRP group showing an MICD in PD only. Tetracycline + SRP versus SRP for aggressive periodontitis: we found very low-certainty evidence of a difference in long-term improvement in CAL for the tetracycline group (MD -2.30 mm, 95% CI -2.50 to -2.10; 1 study, 26 participants). Clindamycin + SRP versus SRP in aggressive periodontitis: we found very low-certainty evidence from 1 study, 21 participants of a difference in long-term improvement in CAL (MD -1.70 mm, 95% CI -2.40 to -1.00); and PD (MD -1.80 mm, 95% CI -2.47 to -1.13) favouring clindamycin + SRP. Doxycycline + SRP versus metronidazole + SRP for aggressive periodontitis: there was very low-certainty evidence from 1 study, 27 participants of a difference in long-term CAL (MD 1.10 mm, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.84); and PD (MD 1.00 mm, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.70) favouring metronidazole + SRP. Clindamycin + SRP versus metronidazole + SRP for aggressive periodontitis: the evidence from 1 study, 26 participants for CAL (MD 0.20 mm, 95% CI -0.55 to 0.95); and PD (MD 0.20 mm, 95% CI -0.38 to 0.78) was of very low certainty and did not show a difference between the groups. Clindamycin + SRP versus doxycycline + SRP for aggressive periodontitis: the evidence from 1 study, 23 participants for CAL (MD -0.90 mm, 95% CI -1.62 to -0.18); and PD (MD -0.80 mm, 95% CI -1.58 to -0.02) was of very low certainty and did not show a difference between the groups. Most trials testing amoxicillin, metronidazole, and azithromycin reported adverse events such as nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea, mild gastrointestinal disturbances, and metallic taste. No serious adverse events were reported.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is very low-certainty evidence (for long-term follow-up) to inform clinicians and patients if adjunctive systemic antimicrobials are of any help for the non-surgical treatment of periodontitis. There is insufficient evidence to decide whether some antibiotics are better than others when used alongside SRP. None of the trials reported serious adverse events but patients should be made aware of the common adverse events related to these drugs. Well-planned RCTs need to be conducted clearly defining the minimally important clinical difference for the outcomes closed pockets, CAL, PD, and BOP.
Topics: Adult; Aggressive Periodontitis; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Bias; Chemotherapy, Adjuvant; Chronic Periodontitis; Confidence Intervals; Dental Prophylaxis; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 33197289
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012568.pub2 -
Journal of Clinical Periodontology Jul 2018The goal of this study was to evaluate if dental pulp stem cells (DPSCs) delivered into intrabony defects in a collagen scaffold would enhance the clinical and... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
AIM
The goal of this study was to evaluate if dental pulp stem cells (DPSCs) delivered into intrabony defects in a collagen scaffold would enhance the clinical and radiographic parameters of periodontal regeneration.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
In this randomized controlled trial, 29 chronic periodontitis patients presenting one deep intrabony defect and requiring extraction of one vital tooth were consecutively enrolled. Defects were randomly assigned to test or control treatments which both consisted of the use of minimally invasive surgical technique. The dental pulp of the extracted tooth was mechanically dissociated to obtain micrografts rich in autologous DPSCs. Test sites (n = 15) were filled with micrografts seeded onto collagen sponge, whereas control sites (n = 14) with collagen sponge alone. Clinical and radiographic parameters were recorded at baseline, 6 and 12 months postoperatively.
RESULTS
Test sites exhibited significantly more probing depth (PD) reduction (4.9 mm versus 3.4 mm), clinical attachment level (CAL) gain (4.5 versus 2.9 mm) and bone defect fill (3.9 versus 1.6 mm) than controls. Moreover, residual PD < 5 mm (93% versus 50%) and CAL gain ≥4 mm (73% versus 29%) were significantly more frequent in the test group.
CONCLUSIONS
Application of DPSCs significantly improved clinical parameters of periodontal regeneration 1 year after treatment.
Topics: Alveolar Bone Loss; Dental Pulp; Follow-Up Studies; Guided Tissue Regeneration, Periodontal; Humans; Periodontal Attachment Loss; Periodontal Pocket; Regeneration; Stem Cells; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 29779220
DOI: 10.1111/jcpe.12931