An economic evaluation of a chlorhexidine chip for treating chronic periodontitis: the CHIP (chlorhexidine in periodontitis) study

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.

Commercial Local Pharmacotherapeutics and Adjunctive Agents for Nonsurgical Treatment of Periodontitis: A Contemporary Review of Clinical Efficacies and Challenges

Periodontal infections tend to be site-specific, mostly confined to the periodontal pocket. With the surge of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, the trend is shifting towards other therapeutic modalities, especially locally delivered approaches that include other pharmacotherapeutic drugs and medical devices. This narrative review aimed to provide insights into the clinical efficacy of local drug delivery and adjunctive agents used in nonsurgical management of periodontitis. Electronic (PubMed/MEDLINE, CENTRAL, and EMBASE) and bibliographic searches of past systematic reviews were carried out to identify previous publications on the topic. Only relevant literature and randomized controlled trials published in English were selected. In addition, a literature review was developed based on the selected articles. Experimental drugs or agents were excluded. This review highlights the clinically proven and commercially available therapeutic agents related to the management of periodontal disease with comparisons of their clinical efficacies and challenges. A vast array of commercial local pharmacotherapeutic agents had been clinically tested, but the methodologies and clinical results varied within and between each agent used, causing difficulty in drawing conclusions and providing support to the superiority of one agent over another. Considering the benefit-cost ratio with the modest clinical results, the long-term usefulness of these agents remains debatable.

Treatment of Peri-Implant Mucositis with Repeated Application of Chlorhexidine Chips or Gel during Supportive Therapy - A Randomized Clinical Trial

Running head

Peri-implant maintenance with CHX

Abstract

Background: To assess the effect of chlorhexidine (CHX) chip application in patients with peri-implant mucositis as compared to CHX gel application. Methods: In peri-implant sites with mucositis, CHX gel was applied in the control group (GC) and CHX chips in the test group (CC) at baseline and after three months. At baseline and after six months, peri-implant pocket depths (PPD), bleeding-on-probing (BOP) and activated matrix metalloproteinase-8 (aMMP8) were assessed. Longitudinal changes were tested for inter-group differences. Results: Thirty-two patients were treated. BOP was more reduced (p = 0.006) in CC than in GC, with means and standard deviations of 46 ± 28% and 17 ± 27%, respectively. PPD was more reduced (p = 0.002) in CC than in GC with 0.65 ± 0.40 mm and 0.18 ± 0.32 mm, respectively. Regarding BOP, the percentages of improved, unchanged and worsened sites accounted for 32%, 61% and 7% in GC and 46%, 53% and 1% in CC, respectively. For probing pocket depth, the according values were 26%, 66% and 8% (GC) versus 57%, 38% and 5% (CC). Conclusions: During supportive therapy, repeated CHX chip application might resolve marginal peri-implant inflammation in terms of bleeding better than CHX gel.

A Systematic Review on the Effects of the Chlorhexidine Chip When Used as an Adjunct to Scaling and Root Planing in the Treatment of Chronic Periodontitis

BACKGROUND

Several local antimicrobial agents, such as a bioabsorbable chlorhexidine chip, have been developed to enhance the outcome of non-surgical periodontal therapy.

METHODS

Electronic (MEDLINE and Cochrane Oral Health Group Specialized Trials Register) and manual searches were performed to detect studies concerning the use of the chlorhexidine chip as an adjunct to scaling and root planing in the treatment of chronic periodontitis. Only full-text randomized controlled trials published in English up to June 2005 were included.

RESULTS

Five studies were finally selected following independent screening by two reviewers. Due to considerable heterogeneity in study design, a qualitative data analysis was performed. Multicenter studies have indicated significantly higher pocket reductions and clinical attachment gains following a combination of mechanical debridement and repeated chlorhexidine chip administration in comparison to scaling and root planing alone. However, some recent studies failed to confirm the additional value of the chlorhexidine chip. A number of interstudy disparities with respect to methodological quality and study design may account for this lack of accordance.

CONCLUSIONS

The clinical and microbiological data currently available on the chlorhexidine chip are limited and conflicting. More research is needed to elucidate the additional value of the chlorhexidine chip when used as an adjunct to scaling and root planing.

Cost-benefit, cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses of periodontitis prevention

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this paper was to determine whether there is evidence that periodontitis prevention is economically justified.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The characteristics of economic assessments such as cost-benefit, cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses were first derived from the literature on health economy. A literature search was conducted using PubMed up to December 2004. Inclusion criteria required that economic analyses be based on scientific principles including a hypothesis, valid comparative groups as well as a cost/benefit, cost/effectiveness and cost/utility assessment.

RESULTS

Only 14 papers were located, which included, in the broadest sense, economic parameters. From these papers, three were systematic reviews, three were randomized controlled studies, four were controlled studies, one was a longitudinal cohort study and three papers were based on statistical modelling. Only one paper reported actual costs for periodontal and dental treatment. Extensive programmes aimed at prevention of periodontal disease in a general population group showed no economic benefit. Adjunctive genetic/and or microbiological testing likewise showed no economic benefit. Economic assessments and real costs are not generally available in the literature. Statistical modelling suggested that non-surgical periodontal procedures are more economical compared with surgical interventions. The use of local delivery devices as an adjunct to Sc/RP showed no economic advantage.

CONCLUSION

It is suggested that economic parameters as well as patient-centred outcomes be included in clinical trials. These data are essential for the appropriate allocation of resources for preventive measures on an individual patient and population base.

Clinical trials in dental primary care: what research methods have been used to produce reliable evidence?

OBJECTIVE

To identify controlled clinical trials done exclusively in dental primary care and to classify the research according to design. Details of any procedures used to recruit general dental practitioners and any special organisational arrangements were also collected.

DESIGN

A scoping literature review.

SETTING

Dental primary care defined as general dental practice, community and school dental settings.

PARTICIPANTS

Published randomised controlled trials using randomised or quasi randomised approaches and controlled clinical trials were considered for inclusion in the review. Reports were excluded if they did not describe either a randomised controlled trial or a controlled trial. Studies were excluded if the setting was not primary dental care or the intervention was for non-dental conditions. Conference abstracts without a full report and trials published in a language other than English were also excluded.

MAIN OUTCOMES

Experimental and quasi-experimental designs, clinical areas and different kinds of strategies used to recruit dentists, any organisational arrangements made to support research in dental primary care.

RESULTS

The search of the Cochrane Oral Health Group Controlled Trials Register found 174 articles. Forty-three randomised controlled trials met the inclusion criteria. Trials to evaluate the effects of interventions for types of anaesthesia, periodontal diseases, smoking cessation techniques, dental materials, organisational aspects of dental care, patient anxiety, post extraction healing rates, antibiotics were identified. All were done in general dental practice. Trials in school and community settings were also included.

CONCLUSIONS

Practice-based research needs to be encouraged to provide dental primary care with relevant evidence upon which effective treatment can be based. This review shows there are few trials done in dental primary care to inform clinical practice, most of which have been reported since 1997. The range of trial designs shows that this method of evaluation can be used to evaluate dental primary care interventions and this is promising for those with an interest in improving dental patient outcomes. More research on how to recruit dentists into clinical trial research must be done.

Using corn mu n ity-based protocols to prevent dental disease in people with special needs: periodontal prevention and intervention

This paper discusses preventing and treating periodontal diseases in people with special needs.