Antimicrobial Photodynamic Therapy Using a Chloro-Aluminum Phthalocyanine Adjuvant to Nonsurgical Periodontal Treatment Does Not Improve Clinical Parameters in Patients with Chronic Periodontitis

Efficiency of the photodynamic therapy on viability of Streptococcus mutans in the oral cavity using chitosan nanoparticles: an in vitro study

PURPOSE

This study aimed to investigate the efficiency of antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) on Streptococcus mutans biofilm in the oral cavity using the photosensitizer chloroaluminum phthalocyanine encapsulated in chitosan nanoparticles (ClAlPc/Ch) at three preirradiation times.

METHODS

Biofilms of Streptococcus mutans strains (ATCC 25,175) were cultivated on bovine tooth blocks and exposed to a 10% sucrose solution three times a day for 1 min over three consecutive days. The samples were randomly distributed into five treatment groups (n = 5): (I) aPDT with ClAlPc/Ch with a preirradiation time of 5 min (F5), (II) aPDT with ClAlPc/Ch with a preirradiation time of 15 min (F15), (III) aPDT with ClAlPc/Ch with a preirradiation time of 30 min (F30), (IV) 0.12% chlorhexidine digluconate (CHX), and (V) 0.9% saline solution (NaCl). After treatment, the S. mutans biofilms formed on each specimen were collected to determine the number of viable bacteria (colony-forming units (CFU)/mL). Data were analyzed for normality using the Shapiro-Wilk test and the analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Tukey HSD tests to analyze the number of viable bacteria (α = 0.05).

RESULTS

The one-way ANOVA showed a difference between the groups (p = 0.0003), and the Tukey HSD posttest showed that CHX had the highest microbial reduction of S. mutans, not statistically different from the F5 and F15 groups, whereas the NaCl group had the lowest microbial reduction statistically similar to the F30 group.

CONCLUSION

The results demonstrate that aPDT mediated by ClAlPc/Ch when used at preirradiation times of 5-15 min can be an effective approach in controlling cariogenic biofilm of S. mutans, being an alternative to 0.12% CHX.

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.

Effectiveness of photodynamic therapy on the treatment of chronic periodontitis: a systematic review during 2008-2023

Objective

This study investigated the effect of photodynamic therapy on chronic periodontitis patients and then evaluated the microbial, immunological, periodontal, and clinical outcomes. The significant effects of photodynamic therapy obtained by in vitro and in vivo studies have made it a popular treatment for periodontal diseases in recent years. Photodynamic therapy is a novel bactericidal strategy that is stronger, faster, and less expensive than scaling and root planing.

Method

This study registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021267008) and retrieved fifty-three randomized controlled trials by searching nine databases (Medline, Embase, Scopus, Open Gray, Google Scholar, ProQuest, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov) from 2008 to 2023. Of 721 records identified through database searches following title and full-text analysis, and excluding duplicate and irrelevant publications, 53 articles were included in this systematic review. Fifty of the 53 eligible studies fulfilled all the criteria in the Joanna Briggs Institute's (JBI's) Checklist for RCTs; the remaining articles met 9-12 criteria and were considered high quality.

Results

The present study showed that photodynamic therapy in adjunct to scaling and root planing has the potential to improve periodontal parameters such as clinical attachment loss or gain, decrease in bleeding on probing, and probing pocket depth. In addition, photodynamic therapy decreases the rate of periodontal pathogens and inflammation markers, which, in turn, reduces the progression of periodontitis.

Conclusion

Photodynamic therapy is considered a promising, adjunctive, and low-cost therapeutic method that is effective in tissue repair, reducing chronic periodontitis, reducing inflammation, and well-tolerated by patients.

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.

The ever-changing landscape in modern dentistry therapeutics - Enhancing the emptying quiver of the periodontist

Introduction/Objectives

Periodontitis comprises of a wide range of inflammatory conditions of the gums leading to soft tissue damage and attachment loss. The initiation of periodontitis constitutes a rather complex disease pathogenesis which is based on pathogenic shifts of the oral microbiota combined with the host-microbiome interactions. The severity of the periodontitis is multifactorial depending on genetic, environmental, as well as host immunity factors.

Data and sources

To make an inclusive analysis on the periodontitis therapeutics, reading of the recent relevant literature was carried out using the MEDLINE/PubMed database, Google Scholar and the NIH public online database for clinical trials (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov).

Conclusions

Tackling the inflammation associated periodontal defects can be succeeded with conventional therapy or resective and regenerative treatment. To date, the mechanical removal of the supragingival and subgingival biofilm is considered the “gold standard” of periodontal therapy in combination with the use of antibacterial compounds. The antimicrobial resistance phenomenon tends to turn all the currently applied antibacterials into “endangered species”. Ongoing efforts through the conduct of clinical trials should be focused on understanding the advantages of modern approaches in comparison to traditional therapies.

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.