Efficacy of adjunctive photodynamic therapy in the treatment of generalized aggressive periodontitis: A randomized controlled clinical trial

Gingival crevicular fluid level of tumor necrosis factor-alpha as a valuable biomarker for estimation of the efficacy of adjunctive antimicrobial photodynamic therapy in stage II-IV periodontitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE

This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to assess the gingival crevicular fluid (GCF) level of tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-alpha) as a valuable inflammatory cytokine for estimation of the efficacy of adjunctive antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) in stage II-IV periodontitis patients.

METHODS

This review was conducted in accordance with the PRISMA statements, and registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022321211). An electronic search was conducted for articles comparing the efficacy of aPDT versus scaling and root planing (SRP) published up until June 2023. The mean GCF level of TNF-alpha and clinical attachment loss (CAL) with 95% confidence interval (CI) were pooled and compared between the groups using a random-effect model after 1-2, 4-5, 12-13, and ≥ 24 weeks. The I2 test was applied to assess the heterogeneity of the findings, and publication bias was evaluated by visual inspection of the funnel plot symmetry.

RESULTS

Analysis of 11 studies indicated a significant difference in GCF level of TNF-alpha at the 1-2, 12-13 and ≥ 24-week follow-ups in patients treated with aPDT + SRP. However, at the 4-5-week follow-up, the results were significant in favor of the control group (mean difference = -0.17, 95% CI = -1.86-152, P < 0.00001).

CONCLUSION

Despite the limitations of the included studies, aPDT can decrease the GCF level of TNF-alpha inflammatory biomarker for a longer period of time than SRP alone in grade II-IV periodontitis. However, further investigations are required to assess the efficacy of higher frequency of aPDT applications.

Adjunctive antimicrobial photodynamic therapy for treating periodontal and peri-implant diseases

BACKGROUND

Periodontitis and peri-implant diseases are chronic inflammatory conditions occurring in the mouth. Left untreated, periodontitis progressively destroys the tooth-supporting apparatus. Peri-implant diseases occur in tissues around dental implants and are characterised by inflammation in the peri-implant mucosa and subsequent progressive loss of supporting bone. Treatment aims to clean the pockets around teeth or dental implants and prevent damage to surrounding soft tissue and bone, including improvement of oral hygiene, risk factor control (e.g. encouraging cessation of smoking) and surgical interventions. The key aspect of standard non-surgical treatment is the removal of the subgingival biofilm using subgingival instrumentation (SI) (also called scaling and root planing). Antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) can be used an adjunctive treatment to SI. It uses light energy to kill micro-organisms that have been treated with a light-absorbing photosensitising agent immediately prior to aPDT.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of SI with adjunctive aPDT versus SI alone or with placebo aPDT for periodontitis and peri-implant diseases in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Oral Health Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, two other databases and two trials registers up to 14 February 2024.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) (both parallel-group and split-mouth design) in participants with a clinical diagnosis of periodontitis, peri-implantitis or peri-implant disease. We compared the adjunctive use of antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT), in which aPDT was given after subgingival or submucosal instrumentation (SI), versus SI alone or a combination of SI and a placebo aPDT given during the active or supportive phase of therapy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures, and we used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. We prioritised six outcomes and the measure of change from baseline to six months after treatment: probing pocket depth (PPD), bleeding on probing (BOP), clinical attachment level (CAL), gingival recession (REC), pocket closure and adverse effects related to aPDT. We were also interested in change in bone level (for participants with peri-implantitis), and participant satisfaction and quality of life.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 50 RCTs with 1407 participants. Most studies used a split-mouth study design; only 18 studies used a parallel-group design. Studies were small, ranging from 10 participants to 88. Adjunctive aPDT was given in a single session in 39 studies, in multiple sessions (between two and four sessions) in 11 studies, and one study included both single and multiple sessions. SI was given using hand or power-driven instrumentation (or both), and was carried out prior to adjunctive aPDT. Five studies used placebo aPDT in the control group and we combined these in meta-analyses with studies in which SI alone was used. All studies included high or unclear risks of bias, such as selection bias or performance bias of personnel (when SI was carried out by an operator aware of group allocation). We downgraded the certainty of all the evidence owing to these risks of bias, as well as for unexplained statistical inconsistency in the pooled effect estimates or for imprecision when evidence was derived from very few participants and confidence intervals (CI) indicated possible benefit to both intervention and control groups. Adjunctive aPDT versus SI alone during active treatment of periodontitis (44 studies) We are very uncertain whether adjunctive aPDT during active treatment of periodontitis leads to improvement in any clinical outcomes at six months when compared to SI alone: PPD (mean difference (MD) 0.52 mm, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.74; 15 studies, 452 participants), BOP (MD 5.72%, 95% CI 1.62 to 9.81; 5 studies, 171 studies), CAL (MD 0.44 mm, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.64; 13 studies, 414 participants) and REC (MD 0.00, 95% CI -0.16 to 0.16; 4 studies, 95 participants); very low-certainty evidence. Any apparent differences between adjunctive aPDT and SI alone were not judged to be clinically important. Twenty-four studies (639 participants) observed no adverse effects related to aPDT (moderate-certainty evidence). No studies reported pocket closure at six months, participant satisfaction or quality of life. Adjunctive aPDT versus SI alone during supportive treatment of periodontitis (six studies) We were very uncertain whether adjunctive aPDT during supportive treatment of periodontitis leads to improvement in any clinical outcomes at six months when compared to SI alone: PPD (MD -0.04 mm, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.10; 3 studies, 125 participants), BOP (MD 4.98%, 95% CI -2.51 to 12.46; 3 studies, 127 participants), CAL (MD 0.07 mm, 95% CI -0.26 to 0.40; 2 studies, 85 participants) and REC (MD -0.20 mm, 95% CI -0.48 to 0.08; 1 study, 24 participants); very low-certainty evidence. These findings were all imprecise and included no clinically important benefits for aPDT. Three studies (134 participants) reported adverse effects: a single participant developed an abscess, though it is not evident whether this was related to aPDT, and two studies observed no adverse effects related to aPDT (moderate-certainty evidence). No studies reported pocket closure at six months, participant satisfaction or quality of life.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Because the certainty of the evidence is very low, we cannot be sure if adjunctive aPDT leads to improved clinical outcomes during the active or supportive treatment of periodontitis; moreover, results suggest that any improvements may be too small to be clinically important. The certainty of this evidence can only be increased by the inclusion of large, well-conducted RCTs that are appropriately analysed to account for change in outcome over time or within-participant split-mouth study designs (or both). We found no studies including people with peri-implantitis, and only one study including people with peri-implant mucositis, but this very small study reported no data at six months, warranting more evidence for adjunctive aPDT in this population group.

Clinical and microbiological efficacy of intra-pocket application of diode laser in grade C periodontitis: a randomized controlled clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Periodontitis is a microbially induced disease destroying structures anchoring teeth to jaw bones. Although metronidazole in combination with spiramycin is the effective conventional treatment of stage III grade C periodontitis, it has several systemic side effects. Laser therapy is widely used nowadays as an adjunct to scaling and root planing (SRP) to modulate inflammatory host response and eradicate microbes, due to bactericidal and detoxifying effects. Since microbiological analysis is one of the diagnostic methods identifying periodontal risk; our research aimed to investigate the efficacy of intra-pocket application of diode laser (980 nm) versus antibiotic therapy in enhancing clinical and microbiological parameters in stage III grade C periodontitis.

METHODS

A randomized controlled clinical trial was conducted on fifty patients with stage III grade C periodontitis, divided equally into two groups. We managed test group by SRP with intra-pocket application of diode laser (980 nm) and the control group by SRP with systemic antibiotic administration (spiramycin and metronidazole). Then, we measured periodontal pocket depth (PPD) and clinical attachment loss (CAL) for both groups, before treatment (baseline), four and twelve weeks after. Moreover, we collected gingival crevicular fluid from both groups at baseline, four and twelve weeks after treatment and analyzed by real-time polymerase chain reaction to detect the relative count of Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans and Porhyromonas gingivalis.

RESULTS

Compared to baseline, all assessed clinical and microbiological parameters attested improvement at the end of the study period in each group individually with no significant difference between the two studied groups. Although, at twelve weeks, flare up of bacterial levels was detected with systemic antibiotic administration.

CONCLUSION

Laser therapy can be considered as an effective treatment modality in stage III grade C periodontitis, avoiding the systemic antibiotic side effects and solving the recurrence problems due to bacterial resistance by long term usage.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT05222737 retrospectively on 03/02/2022, Clinicaltrial.gov.

Photodynamic therapy in periodontitis: A narrative review

BACKGROUND

Periodontitis, a chronic infectious disease, is primarily caused by a dysbiotic microbiome, leading to the destruction of tooth-supporting tissues and tooth loss. Photodynamic therapy (PDT), which combines excitation light with photosensitizers (PS) and oxygen to produce antibacterial reactive oxygen species, is emerging as a promising adjuvant treatment for periodontitis.

METHODS

This review focuses on studies examining the antibacterial effects of PDT against periodontal pathogens. It also explores the impact of PDT on various aspects of periodontal health, including periodontal immune cells, human gingival fibroblasts, gingival collagen, inflammatory mediators, cytokines in the periodontium, vascular oxidative stress, vascular behavior, and alveolar bone health. Clinical trials assessing the types of PSs and light sources used in PDT, as well as its effects on clinical and immune factors in gingival sulcus fluid and the bacterial composition of dental plaque, are discussed.

RESULTS

The findings indicate that PDT is effective in reducing periodontal pathogens and improving markers of periodontal health. It has shown positive impacts on periodontal immune response, tissue integrity, and alveolar bone preservation. Clinical trials have demonstrated improvements in periodontal health and alterations in the microbial composition of dental plaque when PDT is used alongside conventional treatments.

CONCLUSIONS

PDT offers a promising adjunctive treatment for periodontitis, with benefits in bacterial reduction, tissue healing, and immune modulation. This article highlights the potential of PDT in periodontal therapy and emphasizes the need for further research to refine its clinical application and efficacy.

The effect of photodynamic therapy in controlling the oral biofilm: A comprehensive overview

Several resistance mechanisms are involved in dental caries, including oral biofilms. An accumulation of bacteria on the surface of teeth is called plaque. Periodontitis and gingivitis are caused by dental plaque. In this review article, we aimed to review the studies associated with the application of photodynamic therapy (PDT) to prevent and treat various microbial biofilm-caused oral diseases in recent decades. There are several studies published in PubMed that have described antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (APDT) effects on microorganisms. Several in vitro and in vivo studies have demonstrated the potential of APDT for treating endodontic, periodontal, and mucosal infections caused by bacteria as biofilms. Reactive oxygen species (ROS) are activated in the presence of oxygen by integrating a nontoxic photosensitizer (PS) with appropriate wavelength visible light. By causing irreversible damage to microorganisms, ROS induces some biological and photochemical events. Testing several wavelengths has been conducted to identify potential PS for APDT. A standard protocol is not yet available, and the current review summarizes findings from dental studies on APDT.

A Modern Approach to Treat Molar/Incisor Pattern Periodontitis-Review

Molar-incisor pattern periodontitis (MIPP) is a severe form of periodontal disease characterized by rapid attachment loss and bone destruction affecting the molars and incisors. Formerly referred to as aggressive periodontitis, the terminology for this condition was revised after the 2017 workshop on the classification of periodontal and peri-implant diseases and conditions. Despite the modification in nomenclature, the treatment strategies for MIPP remain a critical area of investigation. The core principles of MIPP treatment involve controlling local and systemic risk factors, managing inflammation, and arresting disease progression. Traditional non-surgical periodontal therapy, including scaling and root planing, is commonly employed as an initial step together with the prescription of antibiotics. Surgical intervention may be necessary to address the severe attachment loss. Surgical techniques like resective and regenerative procedures can aid in achieving periodontal health and improving esthetic outcomes. This review article aims to provide an overview of the current understanding and advancements in the treatment modalities of MIPP. Through an extensive analysis of the existing literature, we discuss various modern therapeutic approaches that have been explored for managing this challenging periodontal condition.

Randomized and Controlled Clinical Studies on Antibacterial Photodynamic Therapy: An Overview

The emergence of drug-resistant bacteria is considered a critical public health problem. The need to establish alternative approaches to countering resistant microorganisms is unquestionable in overcoming this problem. Among emerging alternatives, antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) has become promising to control infectious diseases. aPDT is based on the activation of a photosensitizer (PS) by a particular wavelength of light followed by generation of the reactive oxygen. These interactions result in the production of reactive oxygen species, which are lethal to bacteria. Several types of research have shown that aPDT has been successfully studied in in vitro, in vivo, and randomized clinical trials (RCT). Considering the lack of reviews of RCTs studies with aPDT applied in bacteria in the literature, we performed a systematic review of aPDT randomized clinical trials for the treatment of bacteria-related diseases. According to the literature published from 2008 to 2022, the RCT study of aPDT was mostly performed for periodontal disease, followed by halitosis, dental infection, peri-implantitis, oral decontamination, and skin ulcers. A variety of PSs, light sources, and protocols were efficiently used, and the treatment did not cause any side effects for the individuals.

Effectiveness of Antimicrobial Photodynamic Therapy in the Treatment of Periodontitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of In Vivo Human Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials

This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) efficacy in periodontitis. The review protocol was conducted in accordance with PRISMA statements, Cochrane Collaboration recommendations and is registered in PROSPERO (CRD 42020161516). Electronic and hand search strategies were undertaken to gather data on in vivo human RCTs followed by qualitative analysis. Differences in probing pocket depth (PPD) and clinical attachment level (CAL) were calculated with 95% confidence intervals and pooled in random effects model at three and six months. Heterogeneity was analyzed, using Q and I² tests. Publication bias was assessed by visual examination of the funnel plot symmetry. Sixty percent of 31 eligible studies showed a high risk of bias. Meta-analysis on 18 studies showed no additional benefit in split mouth studies in terms of PPD reduction (SMD 0.166; 95% CI −0.278 to 0.611; P = 0.463) and CAL gain (SMD 0.092; 95% CI −0.013 to 0.198; P = 0.088). Similar findings noted for parallel group studies; PPD reduction (SMD 0.076; 95% CI −0.420 to 0.573; P = 0.763) and CAL gain (SMD 0.056; 95% CI −0.408 to 0.552; P = 0.745). Sensitivity analysis minimized heterogeneity for both outcome variables; however, intergroup differences were not statistically significant. Future research should aim for well-designed RCTs in order to determine the effectiveness of aPDT.

Is antimicrobial photodynamic therapy an effective treatment modality for aggressive periodontitis? A systematic review of in vivo human randomized controlled clinical trials

BACKGROUND

Limitations of scaling and root planing (SRP) have directed research to utilize additional therapies to enhance conventional techniques. The present systematic review was conducted to evaluate and present a comprehensive overview on effectiveness of antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) in the management of aggressive periodontitis (AgP).

METHODOLOGY

The PRISMA statement guidelines and Cochrane Collaboration recommendations were followed to conduct this systematic review. The review protocol is registered in PROSPERO (CRD 42019143316). A structured electronic and manual search strategy was implied to gather the relevant published data on in vivo human RCTs from their earliest records until 31st October 2019. Relevant data was extracted from the eligible studies, analysed and impartially appraised for its quality.

RESULTS

Eleven papers met the eligibility criteria and included in this review. The data on standardized study protocol, ideal photosensitizer (PS) dye-wavelength combination, optimal parameters was inconclusive and a high risk of bias in majority of the studies noted, which are fundamental in establishing a standardized and replicable protocol.

CONCLUSION

Ultimately researchers should conduct well-designed and robust RCTs performed by trained clinicians in order to determine the effectiveness of aPDT, if any, after acknowledging the drawbacks highlighted in this systematic review.

Effectiveness of antimicrobial photodynamic therapy as an adjunct to open flap debridement in patients with aggressive periodontitis

AIM

The aim of the present clinical trial was to evaluate the clinical efficacy of photodynamic therapy (PDT) as an adjunct to open flap debridement (OFD) in the treatment of generalized aggressive periodontitis (GAP).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The subjects recruited for the study were divided into two groups: 'control group' received treatment through OFD, whereas the test participants were treated with OFD and adjunctive PDT. The clinical periodontal parameters were plaque index (PI), full mouth probing depth (FMPD) and full mouth relative attachment loss (FMRA). The microbial levels of Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans (Aa), Porphyromonas gingivalis (Pg) and Tannarella forsythia (Tf) were analyzed. All parameters were assessed at baseline and 3 months.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS

The observed values for all the parameters were reported in mean and standard deviation (mean ± SD). In order to analyse the mean values and inter-group comparisons, the Mann-Whitney U test was employed. The p-value was set at <0.05 to establish a significant difference among the reported values.

RESULTS

A statistically significant improvement for BOP was observed in PDT group in comparison to the control group at 3 months only (p < 0.05). A significant reduction in the microbiological levels for Aa, Pg and Tf in both the study groups was observed. However, no significant differences in microbial levels were observed at any time point when the control and test groups were compared to each other.

CONCLUSION

PDT in conjuction with OFD plays a significant role in reducing the microbial load and improving the clinical periodontal parameters in patients with GAP. Moreover, it is regarded as a safe treatment regimen as no side effects have been reported regarding its use in GAP.

Repeated application of photodynamic and antibiotic therapy as an adjunct to root surface debridement in patients with grade C and stage III or IV aggressive periodontitis

PURPOSE

To evaluate the efficacy of antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) and antimicrobial therapy on clinical and immunological outcomes of periodontal treatment in patients with periodontitis grade C and stage III or IV.

MATERIAL AND METHOD

The patients recruited in the current research fulfil the clinical case definition of periodontitis 'grade C' in terms of onset of the infection and stage III or IV that defines degree and severity of the disease. One-stage full-mouth ultrasonic debridement (UD) was performed and randomly divided in two groups: Group-I - four applications of aPDT, and Group-II - combination of metronidazole (MTZ) and amoxicillin (AMX) 3 tablets each for 7 days. Whole-mouth periodontal parameters were recorded at baseline, 3-, 6-months after completion of treatment. Gingival crevicular fluid samples were obtained for assessment of inflammatory interleukin (IL)-10 and IL-17 at the same time points.

RESULTS

Seventeen healthy patients completed the study protocol and revealed similar clinical findings at baseline. Bleeding scores significantly reduced in group-I at 3 months post treatment (p < 0.05). It could be seen that group-I showed statistically significant reduction of deep periodontal pockets and gain in CAL in patients with GAP at 3 months (p < 0.05). This difference was maintained at 6 months of follow-up (p < 0.001). Group-II was capable of increasing the levels of IL-10 and reducing IL-17 in GCF at both time periods compared to Group-I (p < 0.05). Group-I did not have significant effect on either cytokine levels in GCF (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Antimicrobial photodynamic therapy improved severe deep periodontal pockets. However, the combination of antimicrobial therapy helped in reducing proinflammation in grade C and stage III or IV periodontitis.

Photodynamic antimicrobial chemotherapy has an overt killing effect on periodontal pathogens? A systematic review of experimental studies

The periodontal disease (PD) etiology is mainly associated with some bacterial strains, such as Porphyromonas gingivalis (P. gingivalis). Nonsurgical root scaling (e.g., antibiotics) may achieve a temporary decrease in the P. gingivalis level, yet it cannot eradicate the microorganism. Moreover, antibiotics can lead to bacterial resistance and undesirable side effects. This systematic review was performed to identify animal data defining antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (PACT) role on experimental PD models in the treatment of P. gingivalis. Embase, MEDLINE, and PubMed were examined for studies published from January 1980 to August 2018. MeSH terms and Scopus data were used to find more related keywords. Four studies were selected and reviewed by two independent researches with a structured tool for rating the research quality. The beneficial effect of PACT included reductions in P. gingivalis counts, bleeding on probing, redness, and inflammation on multiple sites (i.e., first molar, dental implants; subgingival; and mandibular premolars). Although our results suggest that PACT displays antimicrobial action on P. gingivalis, thus improving the PD, a nonuniformity in the PACT protocol and the limited number of studies included lead to consider that the bactericidal efficacy of PACT against periodontal pathogens in PD remains unclear.

Impact of photodynamic therapy versus ultrasonic scaler on gingival health during treatment with orthodontic fixed appliances

OBJECTIVES

Poor oral hygiene during treatment with fixed appliances results in plaque accumulation. The presence of bacteria in the gingival crevice triggers an inflammatory reaction in the gingival tissues. The aim of this study was to compare the impact of two preventive treatments, photodynamic therapy (PDT), and ultrasonic scaler (US), on gingival health in patients under fixed orthodontic treatment.

METHODS

Twenty orthodontic patients were randomly allocated to two groups: PDT or US. Each group received seven sessions [days 0, 15, 30, 45, 90 (3-months follow-up), 180 (6-months follow-up), 270 (9-months follow-up)] of experimental interventions, and clinical parameters [Plaque index(PI); gingival index(GI); probing depth(PD)], periodontopathogens [Agreggatibacter actinomycetemcomitans; Porphyromonas gingivalis; Prevotella intermedia; Micromonas micros; Fusobacterium nucleatum; Tannerella forsythia; Campylobacter rectus; Eikenella corrodens; Capnocytopaga sp.] and protein markers [IL-1β;IL-1ra;IL-6;IL-10;TNF-α;FGF-2/FGF basic] were monitored at baseline and at 3, 6, and 9 months. ANOVA, Student's t-test with Bonferroni correction and ANOVA with multiple rank test were used to identify differences between groups (P < 0.05).

RESULTS

Clinical assessments [PI, GI, and PD] yielded no differences (P > 0.05) between groups, which showed a major decrease at the start of the trial. Reductions in total colony forming units (log CFU reduction) were observed with both treatments, although to a greater extent in the PDT group, but with no differences between groups (P > 0.05). Similar reductions in log CFU counts of P. gingivalis, P. intermedia, and F. nucleatum were observed in both groups (P > 0.05). The two groups also showed similar trends for inflammatory mediators with decreased levels of IL-1β, IL-10, and TNF-α, whereas IL-6 and IL-1ra levels remained stable and those of FGF-2 were increased after both interventions, with no differences (P > 0.05) between groups.

CONCLUSION

Both PDT and US methods proved similar effectiveness for the treatment of gingival inflammation induced by fixed orthodontic appliances. Lasers Surg. Med. 51:256-267, 2019. © 2018 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.