The effectiveness of photodynamic therapy as a complementary therapy to mechanical instrumentation on residual periodontal pocket clinical parameters: A clinical split-mouth test

Effectiveness of photodynamic therapy as an adjunctive treatment for periodontitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Periodontitis is a prevalent inflammatory disease affecting the supporting structures of teeth. While scaling and root planing (SRP) remains the gold standard for treatment, adjunctive therapies are being explored to enhance outcomes. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of photodynamic therapy (PDT) as an adjunct to SRP in the treatment of periodontitis.

METHODS

A comprehensive literature search was conducted in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, CNKI, Wanfang, and Weipu databases. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing SRP alone to SRP with adjunctive PDT were included. The primary outcomes were changes in clinical attachment level (CAL) and probing depth (PD). Secondary outcomes included plaque index (PI). Random-effects models were used for meta-analysis, and heterogeneity was assessed using I² statistics.

RESULTS

Eighteen RCTs met the inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis revealed that adjunctive PDT significantly improved CAL (SMD: -0.16; 95% CI: -0.40, -0.07; P < 0.001; I² = 60.7%) and PD (SMD: -0.55; 95% CI: -0.97, -0.13; P < 0.001; I² = 76.2%) compared to SRP alone. PI also showed improvement with adjunctive PDT (SMD: -0.40; 95% CI: -0.67, -0.14; P = 0.072; I² = 43.0%). Egger's test indicated a borderline significant publication bias for CAL, while no significant publication bias for PD.

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis provides evidence that PDT as an adjunct to SRP can significantly improve clinical outcomes in periodontitis treatment. However, the high heterogeneity observed suggests that optimal PDT protocols need further investigation. Future research should focus on standardizing PDT parameters and exploring its long-term effects.

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.

Photodynamic therapy adjuvant to non-surgical periodontal therapy: Systematic review of randomized clinical trials

OBJECTIVES

To systematically evaluate randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on whether adjuvant application of antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) through the technique of irradiation in the external region of the periodontal pocket with optic-fibre tip offers benefits to scaling and root planning (SRP).

METHODS

Five databases were searched by two independent reviewers according to pre-specified eligibility criteria up to April 2023. No restrictions regarding date of publication, language and minimum follow-up period were imposed. The Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias tool (RoB 2.0) was used for quality appraisal and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation for assessing the certainty of evidence.

RESULTS

A total of 1388 publications were identified and reviewed for eligibility. Four of them fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The sample consisted of a total of 83 patients with periodontitis. In these, 330 periodontal sites were evaluated. The clinical findings of the majority of the included studies demonstrated that patients who received the association of aPDT + RAR with the protocol evaluated here, obtained clinical results similar to patients who received only the SRP alone. In none of the evaluated RCTs, clinical advantages were observed that would categorise this aPDT protocol as superior to conventional treatment.

CONCLUSION

Applying aPDT after SRP with external irradiation of the periodontal pocket does not seem to result in any clinical benefit compared to the use of SRP alone in patients with periodontitis.

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.

Photodynamic Therapy by Mean of 5-Aminolevulinic Acid for the Management of Periodontitis and Peri-Implantitis: A Retrospective Analysis of 20 Patients

Periodontitis and peri-implantitis are common in the population worldwide. Periodontal diseases affect approximately 50% of adults, while mucositis affects 80% of patients with implants, turning into peri-implantitis at a rate varying from 28 to 58%. If standardized treatments for all degrees and variety of periodontal diseases are known and codified, a consensus on the treatment of peri-implantitis still has to be found. Photodynamic therapy (PDT) has been used successfully in the medical field and was recently introduced as supportive therapy in dentistry. This paper reviews the results on 20 patients, 10 affected by periodontal disease (grades II to III) and 10 by peri-implantitis. Application of 5% 5-aminolevulinic acid gel (ALAD), as a support of causal therapy, in periodontal pockets and areas of peri-implantitis favored the maintenance of severely compromised teeth and significantly improved compromised implant conditions. Between baseline and 6 months, all teeth and implants remained functional. All patients confirmed that the scaling and root planning (SRP)+ALAD-PDT was not painful, and all perceived a benefit after the treatment at all timing points. For periodontal patients, a significant decrease in PPD after 3 (p < 0.001) and 6 months after SRP+ALAD-PDT respect baseline values were observed. For the implant patients, the SRP+ALAD-PDT was correlated to a decrease in PPD and BOP, and a slight increase in the number of exposed threads. However, the results were statistically significant only for PPD (p < 0.001).

Clinical and Microbiological Evaluation of Local Doxycycline and Antimicrobial Photodynamic Therapy during Supportive Periodontal Therapy: A Randomized Clinical Trial

The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical and microbiological effects of subgingival instrumentation (SI) alone or combined with either local drug delivery (LDD) or photodynamic therapy (PDT) in persistent/recurrent pockets in patients enrolled in supportive periodontal therapy (SPT). A total of 105 patients enrolled in SPT were randomly treated as follows: group A (n = 35): SI +PDT and 7 days later 2nd PDT; group B (n = 35): SI+LDD; group C (n = 35): SI (control). Prior intervention, at 3 and 6 months after therapy, probing pocket depths, clinical attachment level, number of treated sites with bleeding on probing (n BOP), full mouth plaque and bleeding scores (gingival bleeding index, %BOP) were recorded. At the same time points, 8 periodontopathogens were quantitatively determined. All three treatments resulted in statistically significant improvements (p < 0.05) of all clinical parameters without statistically significant intergroup differences (p > 0.05). Several bacterial species were reduced in both test groups, with statistically significantly higher reductions for LDD compared to PDT and the control group. In conclusion, the present data indicate that: (a) In periodontal patients enrolled in SPT, treatment of persistent/recurrent pockets with SI alone or combined with either PDT or LDD may lead to comparable clinical improvements and (b) the adjunctive use of LDD appears to provide better microbiological improvements for some periodontal pathogens than SI alone or combined with PDT.