Benefits of adjunctive moxifloxacin in generalized aggressive periodontitis: a subgroup analyses in Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans-positive/negative patients from a clinical trial

The Effect of Non-Surgical Periodontal Therapy on Subgingival Microbiota: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

AIM

The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the influence of non-surgical periodontal therapy (NSPT) on subgingival microbiota in systemically healthy patients with periodontitis.

METHODS

A systematic literature search was conducted in Medline, Embase, LILACS, and the Cochrane Library, supplemented by a manual search for studies investigating the effect of NSPT on subgingival microbiota in systemically healthy patients.

RESULTS

In this review, 115 studies were included, of which 41 used checkerboard DNA-DNA hybridisation technology, 30 real-time quantitative PCR, 36 bacterial culture, and 8 16S ribosomal ribonucleic acid (rRNA) gene sequencing technology. Meta-analyses showed a significant decrease in mean counts of Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans (A. actinomycetemcomitans), Treponema denticola (T. denticola), Porphyromonas gingivalis (P. gingivalis), Tannerella forsythia (T. forsythia), Eubacterium nodatum (E. nodatum), Prevotella intermedia (P. intermedia), and Campylobacter rectus (C. rectus) after NSPT. Supportive periodontal care provided a further decrease in mean counts of P. gingivalis and T. denticola at 6 months after NSPT. Qualitative analysis of 16S rRNA gene sequencing studies indicated significant effects of NSPT on the relative abundance of selected disease-and health-associated species and genera, whereas findings on changes in alpha and beta diversity in the subgingival microbiome were heterogeneous.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review showed that NSPT leads to significant reduction of mean abundance of disease-associated microbial species. However, 16S rRNA gene sequencing studies reported heterogeneous findings, which may be associated with methodological aspects. To deepen the understanding of the effect of NSPT on subgingival microbiota, further studies, powered for microbiome changes and with clustered analysis of site-specific samples, are needed.

Microbial diagnostics in periodontal diseases

Microbial analytical methods have been instrumental in elucidating the complex microbial etiology of periodontal diseases, by shaping our understanding of subgingival community dynamics. Certain pathobionts can orchestrate the establishment of dysbiotic communities that can subvert the host immune system, triggering inflammation and tissue destruction. Yet, diagnosis and management of periodontal conditions still rely on clinical and radiographic examinations, overlooking the well-established microbial etiology. This review summarizes the chronological emergence of periodontal etiological models and the co-evolution with technological advances in microbial detection. We additionally review the microbial analytical approaches currently accessible to clinicians, highlighting their value in broadening the periodontal assessment. The epidemiological importance of obtaining culture-based antimicrobial susceptibility profiles of periodontal taxa for antibiotic resistance surveillance is also underscored, together with clinically relevant analytical approaches to guide antibiotherapy choices, when necessary. Furthermore, the importance of 16S-based community and shotgun metagenomic profiling is discussed in outlining dysbiotic microbial signatures. Because dysbiosis precedes periodontal damage, biomarker identification offers early diagnostic possibilities to forestall disease relapses during maintenance. Altogether, this review highlights the underutilized potential of clinical microbiology in periodontology, spotlighting the clinical areas most conductive to its diagnostic implementation for enhancing prevention, treatment predictability, and addressing global antibiotic resistance.

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.