The adjunctive use of a controlled-release chlorhexidine chip following treatment with a new ultrasonic device in supportive periodontal therapy: a prospective, controlled clinical study

Controlled release devices as adjuvants in nonsurgical periodontal therapy: A systematic review

Controlled release devices (CRD) have been widely studied regarding their application in periodontal therapy. Therefore, the present study aims to evaluate the use and effectiveness of controlled-release devices in nonsurgical periodontal therapy through a systematic review. The research was carried out in six different databases, namely: Online Medical Literature Search and Analysis System (Medline-PubMed), Web of Science, Science Direct, Scopus, Scielo, and Google Scholar. The descriptors "Delayed-Action Preparation," "Therapeutics," and "Periodontitis," were used with their EntryTerms and connected through the Boolean operators AND and OR. A total of 2847 studies were found, and after applying the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses checklist flowchart, 34 were selected using the eligibility criteria. After that, the qualitative results were tabulated and the risk of bias in each of them was evaluated. It can be observed that the use of CRD presents itself as a successful alternative for adjuvant treatment to periodontal therapy, a fact due to its availability and local concentration in the crevicular fluid. However, further clinical research is still needed to develop devices that are effective, with an easy and quick application, as well as available at a good cost-benefit ratio.

Adjunctive Application of Hyaluronic Acid in Combination with a Sodium Hypochlorite Gel for Non-Surgical Treatment of Residual Pockets Reduces the Need for Periodontal Surgery-Retrospective Analysis of a Clinical Case Series

The comprehensive treatment of periodontitis stage 2 to 4 aims at the resolution of periodontal inflammation and “pocket closure”, which implies a residual probing depth of ≤4 mm and a negative BoP. However, supportive periodontal therapy (SPT) regularly leaves behind persistent periodontal pockets with 5 or more mm in residual PPD and sites that often re-colonize and re-infect. Various adjunctive options for subgingival instrumentation have been proposed to enhance the antimicrobial effects to better control the re-infection of these residual sites. The locally applied adjuncts, based on their anti-inflammatory effect, are sodium hypochlorite antiseptic cleaning gel and cross-linked hyaluronic acid (xHyA). Both recently moved into the focus of clinical research on non-surgical and surgical therapy for periodontitis. The surgical use of xHyA indicates regenerative potential, supporting periodontal regeneration. This case series retrospectively analyzes the clinical benefits of the consecutive flapless application of sodium-hypochlorite-based cleaning gel and xHyA at the SPT to achieve pocket closure, thereby reducing the need for periodontal surgery. In 29 patients, 111 sites received the treatment sequence. At 6-month re-evaluation, an overall PPD reduction exceeding 2 mm was achieved, associated with a similar CAL gain (2.02 mm); the bleeding tendency (BoP) was reduced by >60%. Pocket closure occurred in almost 25% of all the sites. Within their limits, the present data suggest that the proposed combined adjunctive treatment of residual active periodontal sites yielded significant improvement in the clinical parameters. Further studies in RCT format are required to confirm these observations.

Clinical and microbiological effects of a single application of sodium hypochlorite gel during subgingival re-instrumentation: a triple-blind randomized placebo-controlled clinical trial

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study is to assess the clinical and microbiological effects of a single subgingival administration of sodium hypochlorite gel (NaOCl) and compare it with 1% chlorhexidine (CHX) gel and a placebo gel following mechanical re-instrumentation during supportive periodontal therapy (SPT).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Sixty-two patients who had been treated for stage III-IV periodontitis and enrolled in SPT were included in the study based on following criteria: (1) active periodontal therapy completed at least 6 months before enrollment in the study, (2) presence of at least 4 non-adjacent sites with probing pocket depths (PPDs) ≥ 4 mm with bleeding on probing (BOP), or presence of 5-8 mm PPDs with or without BOP. All sites presenting PPD ≥ 4 mm and BOP at baseline and 3-, 6-, and 9-month follow-up timepoints were subgingivally re-instrumented with ultrasounds. Selected patients were randomly assigned into three groups and treated additionally with a single subgingival administration of NaOCl gel (group A); 1% CHX gel (group B); and placebo gel (group C). Main outcome variable was pocket closure at 12 months. Secondary outcome variables were changes in mean PPD, BOP, and clinical attachment level (CAL) along with changes in the numbers of the following five keystone bacterial pathogens: Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans (A.a.), Porphyromonas gingivalis (P.g.), Prevotella intermedia (P.i.), Tannerella forsythia (T.f.), and Treponema denticola (T.d.).

RESULTS

At 12 months, pocket closure was obtained in 77.5% in the NaOCl treated sites. The reduction in PPD was higher with CHX than with NaOCl, although a statistically significant adjunctive effect for NaOCl (P = 0.028) was only observed in comparison with placebo only. Mean CAL improved in all groups and at all timepoints, compared to the baseline (P < 0.05). However, after 6 months, CAL gain was statistically significantly higher in the NaOCl treated group than following application of CHX (P = 0.0026).

CONCLUSION

In SPT patients, a single adjunctive use of a NaOCl gel may provide benefits in controlling inflammation and residual pockets.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN Registry of Clinical Trials (ISRCTN11387188).

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

A baseline single application of NaOCl gel in conjunction with mechanical debridement may achieve substantial pocket closure in patients enrolled in SPT; treatment time, cost, and applicability considerations should be taken into account when selecting this therapy.

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 effect of locally delivered antimicrobials in periodontitis therapy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM

To answer the following PICOS question: in adult patients with periodontitis, which is the efficacy of adjunctive locally delivered antimicrobials, in comparison with subgingival debridement alone or plus a placebo, in terms of probing pocket depth (PPD) reduction, in randomized clinical trials with at least 6 months of follow-up.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A systematic search was conducted: 59 papers, reporting 50 different studies, were included. Data on clinical outcome variables changes were pooled and analysed using weighted mean differences (WMDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI), and prediction intervals (PI), in case of significant heterogeneity.

RESULTS

Statistically significant differences were observed, in 6- to 9-month studies, for PPD (WMD = 0.365, 95% CI [0.262; 0.468], PI [-0.29; 1.01]) and clinical attachment level (CAL) (WMD = 0.263, 95% CI [0.123; 0.403], PI [-0.43; 0.96]). For long-term studies, significant differences were observed for PPD (WMD = 0.190, 95% CI [0.059; 0.321]), but not for CAL. For adverse events, no differences were observed. Results were affected by study design (split-mouth versus parallel studies) and assessment (full- or partial-mouth), as well as by the formulation tested.

CONCLUSIONS

The use adjunctive locally delivered antimicrobials in periodontitis therapy results in statistically significant benefits in clinical outcomes, without relevant side effects.

Use of chlorhexidine chip after scaling and root planning on periodontal disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Objective

This systematic review aims to assess the efficacy chlorhexidine chip as an adjunctive therapy of scaling and root planning on periodontal disease treatment.

Material and methods

This study follow the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines (PRISMA) and was registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42019148221). The search was performed in PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and Cochrane databases until April 2020. The PICO question was: “Is the chlorhexidine chip (CHX) effective as an adjunctive therapy of scaling and root planning on periodontal disease treatment?”. Inclusion criteria involved: randomized controlled clinical trials, with a minimum of 15 patients included on the sample and each patient has two sites of probing depth of ≥5 mm; The minimum follow up was at least 1 months of follow-up and the outcomes present in the studies probing depth (PD), plaque index (PI) and clinical attachment level (CAL) after scaling and root planning (SRP).

Results

After searching the databases, 13 articles were selected for qualitative and 8 for quantitative analysis. Were included 427 patients, with a mean age of 45.6 years. The results shown that the association of chlorhexidine chips to scaling and root planning reduce periodontal pocket depths (P < 0.00001; MD −0.77 [CI −1.0 to −0.55]; I² = 23%, P = 0.24), gain on the clinical attachment level (P < 0.0001; MD −0.57 [CI −0.86 to −0.27]; I² = 33%, P = 0.18P < 0.0001) and reduction on plaque index (P = 0.04; MD −0.23 [CI −0.45 to −0.01]; I² = 91%, P < 0.00001).

Conclusions

Thus, we can conclude that chlorhexidine chip when used associated to scaling and root planning promoted a significant improvement the reduction of periodontal diseases.

Adjunctive local treatments for patients with residual pockets during supportive periodontal care: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

AIM

This systematic review and network meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy of adjunctive locally delivered antimicrobials, compared to subgingival instrumentation alone or plus a placebo, on changes in probing pocket depth (PPD) and clinical attachment level (CAL), in patients with residual pockets during supportive periodontal care.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Literature search was performed with electronic databases and by hand until 31 May 2020. Primary outcome was the changes in PPD. The treatment effects between groups were estimated with weighted mean differences (WMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and prediction intervals (PI) by using random-effects network meta-analysis.

RESULTS

Twenty-two studies were included. Significantly greater PPD reduction was achieved in chlorhexidine chip group (WMD: 0.65 mm, 95% CI: 0.21-1.10) and tetracycline fibre group (WMD: 0.64 mm, 95% CI: 0.20-1.08) over 6-month follow-up. Other adjunctive antimicrobial agents achieved non-significant improvements compared to scaling and root planing alone. All differences between adjunctive therapies were statistically non-significant. Similar findings were observed for CAL gain.

CONCLUSION

Adjunctive local antimicrobial agents achieved small additional PPD reduction and CAL gain in residual pockets for a follow-up of up to 6 months. Tetracycline fibre and chlorhexidine chip achieved better results than other antimicrobials.

Effect of chlorhexidine chip as an adjunct in non-surgical management of periodontal pockets: a meta-analysis

Background

The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the difference in treatment outcomes between sub-gingival placement of chlorhexidine chip (CHX chip) in adjunct to scaling and root planing (SRP) and SRP alone for the management of periodontal pockets in patients suffering from chronic periodontitis.

Methods

We searched the MEDLINE (PubMed), SCOPUS and CENTRAL databases and identified 15 randomized clinical trials published within the last decade (2007–2019): 9 with split-mouth design and 6 with parallel study design. We extracted data and performed both qualitative and quantitative syntheses. The primary outcomes assessed were gain in clinical attachment level (CAL), reduction in probing pocket depth (PPD), improvement in gingival inflammation, and results of microbiological assays.

Results

We used meta-analysis plots to assess all the clinical outcomes. The mean differences in PPD reductions at 1 month (MD 0.63), 3 months (MD 0.69), and 6 months (MD 0.75); and the CAL gains at 1 month (MD 0.54), 3 months (MD 0.64), and 6 months (MD 0.68) showed more favorable responses in sites treated with the CHX chip as an adjuvant to SRP, than in sites treated with SRP alone.

Conclusion

SRP with adjunctive CHX chips showed better clinical outcomes than SRP alone for the management of periodontal pockets in patients with chronic periodontitis.

Antiseptics as adjuncts to scaling and root planing in the treatment of periodontitis: a systematic literature review

BACKGROUND

Periodontitis is microbially-associated, host-mediated inflammatory condition that results in loss of periodontal attachment. The goals of periodontal therapy include arresting the disease progression, establishing healthy, stable, maintainable periodontal conditions. A fundamental strategy of treating periodontitis is scaling and root planning (SRP), however its efficacy may be restricted in areas inaccessible for mechanical instrumentation. As periodontitis is infectious in nature, it might be helpful to use additional antimicrobial adjuncts, in order to eliminate or inactivate pathogenic microflora. The aim of this study is to evaluate the current evidence regarding the potential clinical benefits of using additional antiseptics for SRP in nonsurgical periodontal therapy.

METHODS

An electronic literature search was conducted in the MEDLINE (Ovid) and Cohrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases for articles published between January 1, 2000 and September 22, 2019. Randomized controlled clinical trials in English that compare the effectiveness of one or more antiseptic agents as adjuncts to SRP with a follow-up of ≥6 months were included. A meta-analysis using the random-effects model was performed on the selected qualifying articles.

RESULTS

The search resulted in 12 articles that met the inclusion criteria. Based on the vehicle employed to deliver the antiseptic agent, studies were divided into adjunctive sustained-release antiseptics (gels, chips and varnish) and adjunctive irrigation with antiseptics. The meta-analysis demonstrated significant improvements in probing depth (PD) reduction (p = 0.001), clinical attachment level (CAL) gain (p = 0.001), and bleeding on probing (BOP) values (p = 0.001) following the adjunctive subgingival application of sustained-release antiseptics. Additional subgingival irrigation with antiseptics failed to show significant improvements in PD (p = 0.321), CAL (p = 0.7568), or BOP values (p = 0.3549) over SRP alone.

CONCLUSIONS

Adjunctive subgingivally delivered antiseptics with a sustained-release delivery have significant clinical benefits compared to SRP alone.

Supportive periodontal therapy (SPT) for maintaining the dentition in adults treated for periodontitis

BACKGROUND

Periodontitis is a bacterially-induced, chronic inflammatory disease that destroys the connective tissues and bone that support teeth. Active periodontal treatment aims to reduce the inflammatory response, primarily through eradication of bacterial deposits. Following completion of treatment and arrest of inflammation, supportive periodontal therapy (SPT) is employed to reduce the probability of re-infection and progression of the disease; to maintain teeth without pain, excessive mobility or persistent infection in the long term, and to prevent related oral diseases.According to the American Academy of Periodontology, SPT should include all components of a typical dental recall examination, and importantly should also include periodontal re-evaluation and risk assessment, supragingival and subgingival removal of bacterial plaque and calculus, and re-treatment of any sites showing recurrent or persistent disease. While the first four points might be expected to form part of the routine examination appointment for periodontally healthy patients, the inclusion of thorough periodontal evaluation, risk assessment and subsequent treatment - normally including mechanical debridement of any plaque or calculus deposits - differentiates SPT from routine care.Success of SPT has been reported in a number of long-term, retrospective studies. This review aimed to assess the evidence available from randomised controlled trials (RCTs).

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of supportive periodontal therapy (SPT) in the maintenance of the dentition of adults treated for periodontitis.

SEARCH METHODS

Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 8 May 2017), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library, 2017, Issue 5), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 8 May 2017), and Embase Ovid (1980 to 8 May 2017). The US National Institutes of Health Trials Registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating SPT versus monitoring only or alternative approaches to mechanical debridement; SPT alone versus SPT with adjunctive interventions; different approaches to or providers of SPT; and different time intervals for SPT delivery.We excluded split-mouth studies where we considered there could be a risk of contamination.Participants must have completed active periodontal therapy at least six months prior to randomisation and be enrolled in an SPT programme. Trials must have had a minimum follow-up period of 12 months.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened search results to identify studies for inclusion, assessed the risk of bias in included studies and extracted study data. When possible, we calculated mean differences (MDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for continuous variables. Two review authors assessed the quality of evidence for each comparison and outcome using GRADE criteria.

MAIN RESULTS

We included four trials involving 307 participants aged 31 to 85 years, who had been previously treated for moderate to severe chronic periodontitis. Three studies compared adjuncts to mechanical debridement in SPT versus debridement only. The adjuncts were local antibiotics in two studies (one at high risk of bias and one at low risk) and photodynamic therapy in one study (at unclear risk of bias). One study at high risk of bias compared provision of SPT by a specialist versus general practitioner. We did not identify any RCTs evaluating the effects of SPT versus monitoring only, or of providing SPT at different time intervals, or that compared the effects of mechanical debridement using different approaches or technologies.No included trials measured our primary outcome 'tooth loss'; however, studies evaluated signs of inflammation and potential periodontal disease progression, including bleeding on probing (BoP), clinical attachment level (CAL) and probing pocket depth (PPD).There was no evidence of a difference between SPT delivered by a specialist versus a general practitioner for BoP or PPD at 12 months (very low-quality evidence). This study did not measure CAL or adverse events.Due to heterogeneous outcome reporting, it was not possible to combine data from the two studies comparing mechanical debridement with or without the use of adjunctive local antibiotics. Both studies found no evidence of a difference between groups at 12 months (low to very low-quality evidence). There were no adverse events in either study.The use of adjunctive photodynamic therapy did not demonstrate evidence of benefit compared to mechanical debridement only (very low-quality evidence). Adverse events were not measured.The quality of the evidence is low to very low for these comparisons. Future research is likely to change the findings, therefore the results should be interpreted with caution.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall, there is insufficient evidence to determine the superiority of different protocols or adjunctive strategies to improve tooth maintenance during SPT. No trials evaluated SPT versus monitoring only. The evidence available for the comparisons evaluated is of low to very low quality, and hampered by dissimilarities in outcome reporting. More trials using uniform definitions and outcomes are required to address the objectives of this review.

Antibiotics/antimicrobials: systemic and local administration in the therapy of mild to moderately advanced periodontitis

This review gives an update of the current scientific evidence on the efficacy of the adjunctive use of systemic and local antibiotics/antimicrobials in the treatment of periodontitis. In particular, it addresses whether their use can improve the results of nonsurgical mechanical therapy in mild-to-moderate forms of the disease. Large numbers of randomized clinical trials and systematic reviews with meta-analyses have clearly established that adjunctive systemic antibiotics, combined with mechanical debridement, offer clinical improvements additional to those obtained with scaling and root planing alone. These effects are more pronounced in aggressive periodontitis and in initially deep pockets, whereas more limited additional improvements, of 0.3 mm for additional pocket reduction and 0.2 mm for additional clinical attachment gain, have been documented for moderately deep sites (4-6 mm) in patients with chronic periodontitis. The marginal clinical benefit in patients with moderate disease has to be balanced against possible side effects. Notably, it has to be realized that an increasing number of warnings have been articulated against the unrestricted use of antibiotics in treating periodontal diseases because of the emerging global public health issue of bacterial resistance. The effects of the adjunctive local administration of antimicrobials have also been very well documented in several systematic reviews. Overall, in persistent or recurrent localized deep sites, the application of antimicrobials by sustained-delivery devices may offer a benefit of an additional 0.4 mm in pocket depth reduction and 0.3 mm in clinical attachment level gain. In conclusion, the slight additional benefits of adjunctive antimicrobials, which were shown for moderate forms of periodontitis, have to be balanced against their side effects and therefore their prescription should be limited as much as possible.

A systematic review on the effects of local antimicrobials as adjuncts to subgingival debridement, compared with subgingival debridement alone, in the treatment of chronic periodontitis

AIMS

To update the existing scientific evidence on the efficacy of local antimicrobials as adjuncts to subgingival debridement in the treatment of chronic periodontitis.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Fifty-six papers were selected, reporting data from 52 different investigations. All the studies reported changes in probing pocket depth (PPD) and clinical attachment level (CAL) and most in plaque index (PlI) and/or bleeding on probing (BOP). Meta-analyses were performed with the data retrieved from the studies fulfilling the inclusion criteria.

RESULTS

The overall effect of the subgingival application of antimicrobials was statistically significant (p = 0.000) for both changes in PPD and CAL with a weighted mean difference (WMD) of -0.407 and -0.310 mm respectively. No significant differences occurred for changes in BOP and PlI. Subgingival application of tetracycline fibres, sustained released doxycycline and minocycline demonstrated a significant benefit in PPD reduction (WMD between 0.5 and 0.7 mm). The rest of the tested outcomes demonstrated a high heterogeneity. The local application of chlorhexidine and metronidazole showed a minimal effect when compared with placebo (WMD between 0.1 and 0.4 mm).

CONCLUSIONS

The scientific evidence supports the adjunctive use of local antimicrobials to debridement in deep or recurrent periodontal sites, mostly when using vehicles with proven sustained release of the antimicrobial.

Treatment modalities and evaluation models for periodontitis

Periodontitis is the most common localized dental inflammatory disease related with several pathological conditions like inflammation of gums (gingivitis), degeneration of periodontal ligament, dental cementum and alveolar bone loss. In this perspective, the various preventive and treatment modalities, including oral hygiene, gingival irrigations, mechanical instrumentation, full mouth disinfection, host modulation and antimicrobial therapy, which are used either as adjunctive treatments or as stand-alone therapies in the non-surgical management of periodontal infections, have been discussed. Intra-pocket, sustained release systems have emerged as a novel paradigm for the future research. In this article, special consideration is given to different locally delivered anti-microbial and anti inflammatory medications which are either commercially available or are currently under consideration for Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval. The various in vitro dissolution models and microbiological strain investigated to impersonate the infected and inflamed periodontal cavity and to predict the in vivo performance of treatment modalities have also been thrashed out. Animal models that have been employed to explore the pathology at the different stages of periodontitis and to evaluate its treatment modalities are enlightened in this proposed review.

Effects of systemic ornidazole, systemic and local compound ornidazole and pefloxacin mesylate on experimental periodontitis in rats

Background

The purpose of the current study is to evaluate the effects of systemic ornidazole (SO) and systemic and local compound ornidazole and pefloxacin mesylate (SCOPM/LCOMP) on the inflammatory response associated with rat experimental chronic periodontitis (ECP) in sites with subgingival debridement.

Material/Methods

Periodontitis was induced in male Sprague-Dawley rats by placing a thin steel ligature around the upper first molars and inoculating them with Porphyromonas gingivalis 381. After the successful induction of the rat ECP, the periodontitis rats were randomly divided into 3 different combined treatment groups: (A) SO with scaling and root planing (SRP); (B) SCOMP with SRP; and (C) LCOMP with SRP. After 2 weeks the effects of the treatments were evaluated based on gingivitis, plaque index, probing pocket depth, aspartate aminotransferase, alveolar bone loss, and hematoxylin-eosin staining of the region around the first molars.

Results

After treatment, comparison with ECP was performed. The mean percentage reductions of SBI in SO, SCOPM, and LCOPM were 27.73%, 33.61%, and 58.82%, respectively. Those of PI were 33.20%, 42.80%, and 60.00%; those of PPD were 48.66%, 55.70%, and 72.48%; those of GCF-AST were 41.64%, 49.03%, and 66.42%; and those of ABL were 41.19%, 43.63%, and 54.47%, respectively. The inflammatory score of H&E showed median scores of 2.5, 1.75, 1.63, and 0.95 for ECP, SO, SCOMP, and LCOMP, respectively. All 3 treatment groups exhibited significantly reduced inflammation indicators (P<0.05). Of the 3, group C was the most effective (P<0.05).

Conclusions

Although all the combined treatment groups responded to therapy with significant resolution of the infection, adjunctive LCOMP therapy is more effective for periodontitis.

The effect of the Vector scaler system on human teeth: a systematic review

AIM

To review the available literature, considering the effect of instrumentation with the Vector ultrasonic scaler on human teeth in vitro and in vivo compared to conventional ultrasonic instruments and/or hand instrumentation. The assessed effects are calculus removal, time of instrumentation, root surface aspects, cell attachment, patients' perception, bleeding upon probing, pocket depth, clinical attachment loss and microbiological effects.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

MEDLINE-PubMed and the Cochrane Central register of controlled trials (CENTRAL) were searched up through January 2008 to identify appropriate studies.

RESULTS

Independent screening of the titles and abstracts of 270 MEDLINE-PubMed and 15 Cochrane papers resulted in 15 suitable publications. The studies differed in design and outcome, so this review summarizes the outcomes in a descriptive manner. Comparisons are presented against conventional ultrasonic system and scaling and root planing.

CONCLUSION

The Vector ultrasonic scaler provided comparable clinical and microbiological periodontal healing results as scaling and root planing and conventional ultrasonic system in moderately deep pockets. The Vector ultrasonic scaler may be used as a gentle root debridement device for supportive periodontal therapy, as an alternative to other conventional ultrasonic system. The operator should however consider the extra time needed for instrumentation.

Which type of scaling system is best?

DATA SOURCES

Medline and the Cochrane Central register of Controlled Trials were searched for relevant studies.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomised controlled trials and controlled clinical trials conducted in vitro or in vivo on human teeth, which used plaque, bleeding, gingivitis or pocket depth, clinical attachment level, microbiological findings, patient perception and treatment time as outcome measures, were included. Case reports, letters and narrative or historical reviews were excluded and only English-language papers were considered.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

The studies included differed in design and outcome so a qualitative summary was presented.

RESULTS

Fifteen studies met the inclusion criteria. The Vector (Dürr Dental, Bietigheim-Bissingen, Germany) ultrasonic scaler (VUS) provided clinical and microbiological periodontal healing results comparable to scaling and root planing and a conventional ultrasonic system in moderately deep pockets.

CONCLUSIONS

The VUS may be used as a gentle root debridement device for supportive periodontal therapy, as an alternative to other conventional ultrasonic systems. The operator should consider, however, the extra time needed for instrumentation.