Adjunctive systemic antimicrobials for the non-surgical treatment of chronic and aggressive periodontitis

Antibiotic resistance in periodontitis patients: A systematic scoping review of randomized clinical trials

OBJECTIVES

The objective of the study was to evaluate the prevalence and proportions of antibiotic-resistant species in periodontitis patients.

METHODS

A systematic scoping review of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) was conducted using the PRISMA extension for scoping reviews involving different databases. MeSH terms and keywords were provided to examine only RCTs with antibiotic-resistant results that included at least 3 months of follow-up of systematically healthy patients diagnosed with periodontitis and treated with systemic or local antibiotics adjunctive to subgingival debridement. RCTs that managed participants surgically, duplicate publications, and investigations implemented on animals were discarded.

RESULTS

Six RCTs were chosen. These studies included 465 patients. Most investigations observed that while Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans, Tannerella forsythia, and Porphyromonas gingivalis had low resistance to amoxicillin, microorganisms in many sites showed resistance to tetracycline, metronidazole, and azithromycin pretreatment. A. actinomycetemcomitans showed high resistance to tetracycline pre- and post-therapy. The proportion of antibiotic-resistant samples augmented rapidly after the prescription of antibiotics in all test groups. The percentage of antibiotic-resistant microorganisms decreased over time; at the end of the follow-up period, resistance levels were close to baseline levels.

CONCLUSIONS

Adjunctive local and systemic antibiotic treatment temporarily increased the antibiotic resistance of subgingival microorganisms; nonetheless, many bacteria remained susceptible to antibiotics during their administration.

Clinical and Microbiological Efficacy of Adjunctive Systemic Quinolones to Mechanical Therapy in Periodontitis: A Systematic Review of the Literature

Objectives

To assess the clinical and microbiological efficacy of systemic quinolones adjunctive to mechanical therapy in periodontitis patients. Materials and Methods. A systematic review of the scientific literature was carried out. The search scheme comprised the Scopus, PubMed/MEDLINE, SCIELO (Scientific Electronic Library Online), and LILACS (Literatura Latinoamericana y del Caribe en Ciencias de la Salud) databases, together with the gray literature. MeSH terms and keywords were utilized to explore publications in all idioms. Only randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that met the selection criteria were included.

Results

A total of 4 RCTs were selected. These RCTs found superior clinical and microbiological efficacy of adjunctive systemic moxifloxacin (MOX) and levofloxacin (LV) compared to subgingival debridement plus placebo. Improvements in PD and CAL were 2.4 ± 0.8 mm and 2.7 ± 0.9 mm for LV, and 1.5 ± 0.5 mm and 1.8 ± 0.5 mm for MOX, respectively. After six months of follow-up, adjunctive MOX reduced the presence of Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans to imperceptible levels, while LV markedly reduced this microorganism. Some adverse events were reported in the LV group and none in the MOX group.

Conclusions

Adjunctive MOX and LV improve probing depth and clinical attachment level compared with subgingival debridement alone in patients with periodontitis. The efficacy of these quinolones against A. actinomycetemcomitans was also superior.

Clinical Efficacy of Repeated Applications of Local Drug Delivery and Adjunctive Agents in Nonsurgical Periodontal Therapy: A Systematic Review

The aim of this systematic review is to compare the clinical efficacy of repeated applications of local drug delivery and adjunctive agents (LDAs) in nonsurgical periodontal therapy (NSPT) compared to subgingival mechanical debridement (SMD) alone. The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, hand-searched literature and grey literature databases were searched for randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) with a minimum of 6-month follow-up. The outcomes of interest were changes in probing pocket depth and clinical attachment level as well as patient-centred outcomes. Of 1094 studies identified, 16 RCTs were included in the qualitative analysis. Across 11 different adjuncts analysed, only two studies utilizing minocycline gel/ointment and antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) with indocyanine green photosensitizer had statistically significant differences in primary outcomes when compared to their control groups. Only one study on aPDT methylene blue 0.005% had compared single versus multiple applications against its control group. A mean range of 0.27-3.82 mm PD reduction and -0.09-2.82 mm CAL gain were observed with repeated LDA application. Considerable clinical heterogeneity and methodological flaws in the included studies preclude any definitive conclusions regarding the clinical efficacy of repeated LDA applications. Future RCTs with a direct comparison between single and repeated applications should be conducted to confirm or refute the clinical advantages of repeated LDA application in the nonsurgical management of periodontitis.

Adjunctive systemic antimicrobials for the non-surgical treatment of periodontitis

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.

Effect of photobiomodulation therapy as an adjunct to scaling and root planing in a rat model of ligature-induced periodontitis: a histological and radiographic study

This study aimed to histologically and radiographically evaluate the effectiveness of low-intensity laser irradiation of different wavelengths (660 or 808 nm) as an adjunct to scaling and root planing in the treatment of experimental periodontitis in rats. Periodontitis was induced by placing a ligature around the mandibular first molar of the rats. In total, 40 Wistar rats were randomly divided into five groups (n = 8 each): control (CG), periodontal disease (PD), scaling and root planing (SRP), SRP + 660 nm laser (GL660) and SRP + 808 nm laser (GL808). Groups with laser use received radiation at 6 points in the first molar. The animals were euthanized at baseline and at 7 and 14 days after the interventions. Mandibles were surgically removed for histomorphometric and radiographic assessment of periodontal tissues. The GL660 group showed lesser bone loss than the PD group (P < 0.05) and greater alveolar bone margin after 14 days, indicating a better long-term treatment response (P < 0.05). These findings suggest that SRP with the 660 nm laser as an adjunct results in more favorable radiographic and histological responses than the 808 nm laser.

Interventions during pregnancy to prevent preterm birth: an overview of Cochrane systematic reviews

BACKGROUND

Preterm birth (PTB) is a major factor contributing to global rates of neonatal death and to longer-term health problems for surviving infants. Both the World Health Organization and the United Nations consider prevention of PTB as central to improving health care for pregnant women and newborn babies. Current preventative clinical strategies show varied efficacy in different populations of pregnant women, frustrating women and health providers alike, while researchers call for better understanding of the underlying mechanisms that lead to PTB.

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to summarise all evidence for interventions relevant to the prevention of PTB as reported in Cochrane systematic reviews (SRs). We intended to highlight promising interventions and to identify SRs in need of an update.

METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (2 November 2017) with key words to capture any Cochrane SR that prespecified or reported a PTB outcome. Inclusion criteria focused on pregnant women without signs of preterm labour or ruptured amniotic membranes. We included reviews of interventions for pregnant women irrespective of their risk status. We followed standard Cochrane methods.We applied GRADE criteria to evaluate the quality of SR evidence. We assigned graphic icons to classify the effectiveness of interventions as: clear evidence of benefit; clear evidence of harm; clear evidence of no effect or equivalence; possible benefit; possible harm; or unknown benefit or harm. We defined clear evidence of benefit and clear evidence of harm to be GRADE moderate- or high-quality evidence with a confidence interval (CI) that does not cross the line of no effect. Clear evidence of no effect or equivalence is GRADE moderate- or high-quality evidence with a narrow CI crossing the line of no effect. Possible benefit and possible harm refer to GRADE low-quality evidence with a clear effect (CI does not cross the line of no effect) or GRADE moderate- or high-quality evidence with a wide CI. Unknown harm or benefit refers to GRADE low- or very low-quality evidence with a wide CI.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 83 SRs; 70 had outcome data. Below we highlight key results from a subset of 36 SRs of interventions intended to prevent PTB.

OUTCOME

preterm birthClear evidence of benefitFour SRs reported clear evidence of benefit to prevent specific populations of pregnant women from giving birth early, including midwife-led continuity models of care versus other models of care for all women; screening for lower genital tract infections for pregnant women less than 37 weeks' gestation and without signs of labour, bleeding or infection; and zinc supplementation for pregnant women without systemic illness. Cervical cerclage showed clear benefit for women with singleton pregnancy and high risk of PTB only.Clear evidence of harmNo included SR reported clear evidence of harm.No effect or equivalenceFor pregnant women at high risk of PTB, bedrest for women with singleton pregnancy and antibiotic prophylaxis during the second and third trimester were of no effect or equivalent to a comparator.Possible benefitFour SRs found possible benefit in: group antenatal care for all pregnant women; antibiotics for pregnant women with asymptomatic bacteriuria; pharmacological interventions for smoking cessation for pregnant women who smoke; and vitamin D supplements alone for women without pre-existing conditions such as diabetes.Possible harmOne SR reported possible harm (increased risk of PTB) with intramuscular progesterone, but this finding is only relevant to women with multiple pregnancy and high risk of PTB. Another review found possible harm with vitamin D, calcium and other minerals for pregnant women without pre-existing conditions.

OUTCOME

perinatal deathClear evidence of benefitTwo SRs reported clear evidence of benefit to reduce pregnant women's risk of perinatal death: midwife-led continuity models of care for all pregnant women; and fetal and umbilical Doppler for high-risk pregnant women.Clear evidence of harmNo included SR reported clear evidence of harm.No effect or equivalenceFor pregnant women at high risk of PTB, antibiotic prophylaxis during the second and third trimester was of no effect or equivalent to a comparator.Possible benefitOne SR reported possible benefit with cervical cerclage for women with singleton pregnancy and high risk of PTB.Possible harmOne SR reported possible harm associated with a reduced schedule of antenatal visits for pregnant women at low risk of pregnancy complications; importantly, these women already received antenatal care in settings with limited resources.

OUTCOMES

preterm birth and perinatal deathUnknown benefit or harmFor pregnant women at high risk of PTB for any reason including multiple pregnancy, home uterine monitoring was of unknown benefit or harm. For pregnant women at high risk due to multiple pregnancy: bedrest, prophylactic oral betamimetics, vaginal progesterone and cervical cerclage were all of unknown benefit or harm.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Implications for practiceThe overview serves as a map and guide to all current evidence relevant to PTB prevention published in the Cochrane Library. Of 70 SRs with outcome data, we identified 36 reviews of interventions with the aim of preventing PTB. Just four of these SRs had evidence of clear benefit to women, with an additional four SRs reporting possible benefit. No SR reported clear harm, which is an important finding for women and health providers alike.The overview summarises no evidence for the clinically important interventions of cervical pessary, cervical length assessment and vaginal progesterone because these Cochrane Reviews were not current. These are active areas for PTB research.The graphic icons we assigned to SR effect estimates do not constitute clinical guidance or an endorsement of specific interventions for pregnant women. It remains critical for pregnant women and their healthcare providers to carefully consider whether specific strategies to prevent PTB will be of benefit for individual women, or for specific populations of women.Implications for researchFormal consensus work is needed to establish standard language for overviews of reviews and to define the limits of their interpretation.Clinicians, researchers and funders must address the lack of evidence for interventions relevant to women at high risk of PTB due to multiple pregnancy.