Metronidazole and amoxicillin association in aggressive periodontitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

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.

Microbiological effects of amoxicillin plus metronidazole in the treatment of young patients with Stages III and IV periodontitis: A secondary analysis from a 1-year double-blinded placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Despite the body of evidence supporting the clinical benefits of metronidazole (MTZ) and amoxicillin (AMX) in the treatment of young patients with periodontitis, the microbiological outcomes of this antibiotic protocol have been less explored. This study evaluated the microbiological effects of adjunctive MTZ+AMX in the treatment of young patients with periodontitis.

METHODS

Subjects with periodontitis Stages III or IV and ≤30 years old were randomly allocated to receive scaling and root planing (SRP) with placebo (n = 15) or with MTZ (400 mg) and AMX (500 mg) three times a day for 14 days (n = 15). Nine subgingival biofilm samples per subject (three samples from each probing depth (PD) category: ≤3, 4-6, and ≥7 mm) were collected at baseline and 3-, 6-, and 12-months post-treatment and individually analyzed for 40 bacterial species by checkerboard DNA-DNA hybridization.

RESULTS

Thirty subjects (15/group) with mean ages 27.6 ± 3.5 (control) and 26.8 ± 3.9 (test) were included. At 12 months post-therapy, the antibiotic group harbored lower proportions of red complex (1.3%) than the placebo group (12.5%) (p < 0.05). SRP + MTZ+AMX was more effective than mechanical treatment in reducing levels/proportions of several pathogens and increasing proportions of Actinomyces species (p < 0.05). Levels/proportions of Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans were only reduced in the antibiotic group (p < 0.05). This group also exhibited greater reduction in the number of sites with PD ≥5 mm and higher percentage of subjects reaching the clinical end point for treatment (≤4 sites with PD ≥5 mm) than the control group (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

SRP+MTZ+AMX allowed for establishing a long-term healthier subgingival biofilm community and periodontal clinical condition, than SRP only.

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.