Periodontal Debridement With Povidone-Iodine in Periodontal Treatment: Short-Term Clinical and Biochemical Observations

Change in clinical parameters after subgingival instrumentation for the treatment of periodontitis and timing of periodontal re-evaluation: A systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM

To evaluate the changes in periodontal parameters (reduction in probing pocket depth [PPD], gain in clinical attachment level [CAL] and reduction in full-mouth bleeding on probing [BoP]) after subgingival instrumentation of periodontal pockets at different time points in systemically healthy patients suffering from periodontitis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Four databases were searched for RCTs that carried out subgingival instrumentation in periodontal pockets and evaluated PPD at a minimum of two consecutive time points other than baseline. The analysis was conducted for both all pocket depths and stratified for initially shallow (4-5 mm) and deep (≥6 mm) pockets and data were extracted for various time points, 1-2, 3-4 and 5-6 months. Weighted mean effects (WMEs) were calculated with 95% confidence interval (CI) and predictive intervals were calculated.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine RCTs were identified, and all of them were included in the meta-analysis. The results showed that for both shallow and deep pockets there was a small though clinically meaningful change between 1- to 2-month and 3- to 4-month time points and between these and 5-6 months.

CONCLUSIONS

In systemically healthy patients, the greater part of reduction in PPD and gain in CAL occurs within the first 1-2 months after subgingival instrumentation. However, additional benefits in terms of pocket depth reduction occur beyond these early time points.

A Low-Cost Protocol Using the Adjunctive Action of Povidone-Iodine Irrigations and Sodium Hypochlorite Rinsing Solution in Step 2 of Periodontal Therapy for Patients with Stage III-IV Periodontitis: A Single-Blind, Randomized Controlled Trial

In severe stages of periodontitis, conventional periodontal therapy and maintenance care are usually insufficient due to the viral and bacterial etiology; thus, a mechanical approach alone may not be sufficient to eliminate a substantial portion of subgingival pathogens, especially in deep periodontal sites. Background and Objectives: This single-blind, randomized clinical trial aimed to compare the clinical and microbiological efficacy of a low-cost protocol using povidone-iodine and sodium hypochlorite formulations as adjuncts to non-surgical therapy for patients with stage IV periodontitis when compared with chlorhexidine, the most commonly employed substance to date for antimicrobial regimens in periodontal therapy. Materials and Methods: Forty-five patients were randomly divided into two groups: control (subgingival instrumentation, chlorhexidine-assisted) and test (antiviral medication, subgingival instrumentation with povidone-iodine, sodium hypochlorite rinsing solution, and antibiotics). Clinical measurements and microbiological analyses were performed at baseline and after three months. Results: After three months, notable differences were found in the bacterial detection scores for Porphyromonas gingivalis (a significant reduction in detection frequency was observed in the test compared to the control (p = 0.021)), and there were significant reductions in detection in the test group for Tannerella forsythia and Treponema denticola, showing undetectable levels (p < 0.0001 for both). In the test group, the pocket probing depth median value was reduced significantly (p = 0.0005); similarly, bleeding on probing showed a marked decrease (p < 0.0001). However, changes in clinical attachment loss and full-mouth plaque score were not statistically significant. Conclusions: Using the proposed protocol, substantial improvements in clinical and microbiological parameters were obtained when compared with the current antimicrobial recommendations.

Effects of Rinsing with Povidone-Iodine during Step II Periodontal Therapy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background and Objectives: Antiseptics have been suggested to enhance the outcomes of non-surgical periodontal treatment (NSPT). Among these, povidone-iodine (PVP-iodine) was reported to significantly reduce periodontal pocket depths (PPDs). The aim of this study was to systematically re-assess the existing literature regarding the potential benefit of using PVP-iodine in step II periodontal therapy. Material and Methods: The scientific literature was systematically searched across electronic libraries for randomized controlled trials employing PVP-iodine during NSPT through to September 2023, using search items related to PVP-iodine and periodontitis. The selection process was performed by two independent reviewers. The primary outcomes were reductions in periodontal probing depth (PPD) and clinical attachment level (CAL). When reasonable, a meta-analysis of the included studies was performed. Results: Initially, 799 records were identified. After abstract and title screening and fulltext revision, 15 RCTs were included. The data from eight studies were merged in meta-analyses. The use of PVP-iodine had no significant effect on PPD reduction at 6 months (means [standard deviation]: -0.12 mm [-0.33; 0.09]) but it did at 12 months (-0.29 mm [-0.56; -0.02]). CAL was significantly better at 6 (-0.42 mm [-0.64; -0.20]) and 12 months (-0.39 mm [-0.66; -0.11]). Conclusions: PVP-iodine rinsing during NSPT may slightly improve patients' PPD and CAL.

Efficacy of the Adjunct Use of Povidone-Iodine or Sodium Hypochlorite with Non-Surgical Management of Periodontitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

This systematic review sought to assess the efficacy of combining either sodium hypochlorite or povidone-iodine as disinfection solutions with non-surgical treatment of periodontitis. An electronic search was conducted through PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, CENTRAL, and Google Scholar from inception until 10 September 2022. Outcomes included clinical outcomes (probing pocket depth, plaque index, clinical attachment level, relative-horizontal attachment level, bleeding on probing, gingival recession, the position of gingival margin) and biochemical (BAPNA level) properties. A subgroup analysis was conducted according to the assessment timepoint. Ten studies reporting the use of povidone-iodine and five studies reporting the use of sodium hypochlorite were included in this review. Overall, in the meta-analysis of povidone-iodine, no significant changes were noted in any of the assessed outcomes; however, minor changes were noted in probing pocket depth and clinical attachment level at a specific timepoint. Regarding sodium hypochlorite, a significant reduction in all clinical outcomes, except for bleeding on probing, was noted. In conclusion, the use of povidone-iodine does not result in an improvement in clinical outcomes, whereas sodium hypochlorite has promising properties that result in significant improvement in probing pocket depth and clinical attachment level. However, more studies are needed to confirm these observations.

Full-mouth treatment modalities (within 24 hours) for periodontitis in adults

BACKGROUND

Periodontitis is a highly prevalent, chronic inflammation that causes damage to the soft tissues and bones supporting the teeth. Conventional treatment is quadrant scaling and root planing (the second step of periodontal therapy), which comprises scaling and root planing of teeth in one quadrant of the mouth at a time, with the four different sessions separated by at least one week. Alternative protocols for anti-infective periodontal therapy have been introduced to help enhance treatment outcomes: full-mouth scaling (subgingival instrumentation of all quadrants within 24 hours), or full-mouth disinfection (subgingival instrumentation of all quadrants in 24 hours plus adjunctive antiseptic). We use the older term 'scaling and root planing' (SRP) interchangeably with the newer term 'subgingival instrumentation' in this iteration of the review, which updates one originally published in 2008 and first updated in 2015.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the clinical effects of full-mouth scaling or full-mouth disinfection (within 24 hours) for the treatment of periodontitis compared to conventional quadrant subgingival instrumentation (over a series of visits at least one week apart) and to evaluate whether there was a difference in clinical effects between full-mouth disinfection and full-mouth scaling.

SEARCH METHODS

An information specialist searched five databases up to 17 June 2021 and used additional search methods to identify published, unpublished and ongoing studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) lasting at least three months that evaluated full-mouth scaling and root planing within 24 hours, with or without adjunctive use of an antiseptic, compared to conventional quadrant SRP (control). Participants had a clinical diagnosis of (chronic) periodontitis according to the International Classification of Periodontal Diseases from 1999. A new periodontitis classification was launched in 2018; however, we used the 1999 classification for inclusion or exclusion of studies, as most studies used it. We excluded studies of people with systemic disorders, taking antibiotics or with the older diagnosis of 'aggressive periodontitis'.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Several review authors independently conducted data extraction and risk of bias assessment (based on randomisation method, allocation concealment, examiner blinding and completeness of follow-up). Our primary outcomes were tooth loss and change in probing pocket depth (PPD); secondary outcomes were change in probing attachment (i.e. clinical attachment level (CAL)), bleeding on probing (BOP), adverse events and pocket closure (the number/proportion of sites with PPD of 4 mm or less after treatment). We followed Cochrane's methodological guidelines for data extraction and analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 20 RCTs, with 944 participants, in this updated review. No studies assessed the primary outcome tooth loss. Thirteen trials compared full-mouth scaling and root planing within 24 hours without the use of antiseptic (FMS) versus control, 13 trials compared full-mouth scaling and root planing within 24 hours with adjunctive use of an antiseptic (FMD) versus control, and six trials compared FMS with FMD. Of the 13 trials comparing FMS versus control, we assessed three at high risk of bias, six at low risk of bias and four at unclear risk of bias. We assessed our certainty about the evidence as low or very low for the outcomes in this comparison. There was no evidence for a benefit for FMS over control for change in PPD, gain in CAL or reduction in BOP at six to eight months (PPD: mean difference (MD) 0.03 mm, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.14 to 0.20; 5 trials, 148 participants; CAL: MD 0.10 mm, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.26; 5 trials, 148 participants; BOP: MD 2.64%, 95% CI -8.81 to 14.09; 3 trials, 80 participants). There was evidence of heterogeneity for BOP (I² = 50%), but none for PPD and CAL. Of the 13 trials comparing FMD versus control, we judged four at high risk of bias, one at low risk of bias and eight at unclear risk of bias. At six to eight months, there was no evidence for a benefit for FMD over control for change in PPD or CAL (PPD: MD 0.11 mm, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.27; 6 trials, 224 participants; low-certainty evidence; CAL: 0.07 mm, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.24; 6 trials, 224 participants; low-certainty evidence). The analyses found no evidence of a benefit for FMD over control for BOP (very low-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of heterogeneity for PPD or CAL, but considerable evidence of heterogeneity for BOP, attributed to one study. There were no consistent differences in these outcomes between intervention and control (low- to very low-certainty evidence). Of the six trials comparing FMS and FMD, we judged two trials at high risk of bias, one at low risk of bias and three as unclear. At six to eight months, there was no evidence of a benefit of FMD over FMS for change in PPD or gain in CAL (PPD: MD -0.11 mm, 95% CI -0.30 to 0.07; P = 0.22; 4 trials, 112 participants; low-certainty evidence; CAL: MD -0.05 mm, 95% CI -0.23 to -0.13; P = 0.58; 4 trials, 112 participants; low-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of a difference between FMS and FMD for BOP at any time point (P = 0.98; 2 trials, 22 participants; low- to very low-certainty evidence). There was evidence of heterogeneity for BOP (I² = 52%), but not for PPD or CAL. Thirteen studies predefined adverse events as an outcome; three reported an event after FMD or FMS. The most important harm identified was an increase in body temperature. We assessed the certainty of the evidence for most comparisons and outcomes as low because of design limitations leading to risk of bias, and the small number of trials and participants, leading to imprecision in the effect estimates.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The inclusion of nine new RCTs in this updated review has not changed the conclusions of the previous version of the review. There is still no clear evidence that FMS or FMD approaches provide additional clinical benefit compared to conventional mechanical treatment for adult periodontitis. In practice, the decision to select one approach to non-surgical periodontal therapy over another should include patient preference and the convenience of the treatment schedule.

Comparison of three full-mouth concepts for the non-surgical treatment of stage III and IV periodontitis: A randomized controlled trial

AIM

To evaluate the clinical efficacy of full-mouth scaling (FMS), full-mouth disinfection (FMD), and FMD with adjuvant erythritol air-polishing (FMDAP) compared to quadrant-wise debridement (Q-SRP) in patients with periodontitis stage III/IV.

METHODS

In this four-arm parallel, prospective, randomized, controlled multi-centre study, changes of pocket probing depths (PPDs), clinical attachment level (CAL), bleeding on probing (BOP), and proportion of closed pockets (PPD ≤4 mm without BOP) were evaluated at baseline and after 3 and 6 months.

RESULTS

From 190 randomly participating patients, 172 were included in the final analysis. All groups showed significant (p < .05) improvements in all clinical parameters over 3 and 6 months. During the study period, FMDAP showed significantly higher reductions of mean PPD in teeth with moderate (PPD 4-6 mm) and deep (PPD > 6 mm) pockets and significantly increased proportions of pocket closure than Q-SRP. Patients treated with FMD had significantly greater PPD reduction in deep pockets and a higher percentage of pocket closure after 3 months but not after 6 months compared to Q-SRP. CAL and BOP changes did not significantly differ among all groups. Efficiency of treatment (time effort to gain one closed pocket) was significantly higher for FMDAP, FMD, and FMS compared to Q-SRP (6.3, 8.5, 9.5 vs. 17.8 min per closed pocket; p < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

All treatment modalities were effective, without significant differences between full-mouth approaches. FMDAP showed improved clinical outcomes over Q-SRP for moderate and deep pockets after 6 months. Full-mouth protocols were more time-efficient than conventional Q-SRP.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

The trial was registered in a clinical trial database (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03509233).

Subgingival instrumentation for treatment of periodontitis. A systematic review

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy of subgingival instrumentation (PICOS-1), sonic/ultrasonic/hand instruments (PICOS-2) and different subgingival instrumentation delivery protocols (PICOS-3) to treat periodontitis.

METHODS

Systematic electronic search (CENTRAL/MEDLINE/EMBASE/SCOPUS/LILACS) to March 2019 was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials (RCT) reporting on subgingival instrumentation. Duplicate screening and data extraction were performed to formulate evidence tables and meta-analysis as appropriate.

RESULTS

As only one RCT addressed the efficacy of subgingival instrumentation compared with supragingival cleaning alone (PICOS-1), baseline and final measures from 9 studies were considered. The weighted pocket depth (PD) reduction was 1.4 mm (95%CI: 1.0 1.7) at 6/8 months, and the proportion of pocket closure was estimated at 74% (95%CI: 64-85). Six RCTs compared hand and sonic/ultrasonic instruments for subgingival instrumentation (PICOS-2). No significant differences were observed between groups by follow-up time point or category of initial PD. Thirteen RCTs evaluated quadrant-wise versus full-mouth approaches (PICOS-3). No significant differences were observed between groups irrespective of time-points or initial PD. Five studies reported patient-reported outcomes, reporting no differences between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Nonsurgical periodontal therapy by mechanical subgingival instrumentation is an efficacious means to achieve infection control in periodontitis patients irrespective of the type of instrument or mode of delivery. Prospero ID: CRD42019124887.

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.

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.

Local drug delivery systems in the management of periodontitis: A scientific review

Periodontitis (PD) is a microbial disease of tooth supporting tissues that results in progressive destruction of surrounding soft and hard tissues with eventual tooth mobility and exfoliation. Perioceutics, which includes the delivery of therapeutic agents via systemic and local means as an adjunct to mechanical therapy has revolutionized the arena of periodontal therapy. Selection of a right antimicrobial agent with appropriate route of drug administration is the key to successful periodontal therapy. Irrigating systems, fibers, gels, strips, films, microparticles, nanoparticles and low dose antimicrobial agents are some of the local drug delivery systems (LDDS) available in the field, which aims to deliver antimicrobial agents to sub-gingival diseased sites with minimal or no side-effects on other body sites. The present review aim to summarize the current state-of-the-art technology on LDDS in periodontal therapy ensuring the the practitioners are able to choose LDD agents which are custom made for a specific clinical condition.

Use of the Strength of Recommendation Taxonomy (SORT) to assess full-mouth treatments of chronic periodontitis

Previous studies have not resolved whether scaling and root planing with a full-mouth (with or without antiseptics) or quadrant approach is better for treatment of chronic periodontitis. We identified relevant studies and used Strength of Recommendation Taxonomy (SORT) criteria to critically interpret the results of all relevant studies. A literature search was performed using the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases up to July 2015. Selected studies were stratified according to their quality, quantity, and consistency. In total, 377 studies were identified, and 36 articles selected for retrieval were stratified according SORT criteria, as follows: no level 1 studies, 15 level 2 studies, and 21 level 3 studies (which were excluded from subsequent analysis). Among the selected level 2 studies, including seven randomized clinical trials and three systematic reviews, 67% showed no significant difference between scaling and root planing with a full-mouth or quadrant approach. In conclusion, on the basis of the best available data, the strength of evidence is grade B (consistent, low-quality evidence) for full-mouth (with or without antiseptics) and quadrant scaling and root planing for treatment of chronic periodontitis.

Comparison of full-mouth disinfection and quadrant-wise scaling in the treatment of adult chronic periodontitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Scaling and root planing are widely considered as effective methods for treating chronic periodontitis. A meta-analysis published in 2008 showed no statistically significant differences between full-mouth disinfection (FMD) or full-mouth scaling and root planing (FMS) and quadrant scaling and root planing (Q-SRP). The FMD approach only resulted in modest additional improvements in several indices. Whether differences exist between these two approaches requires further validation. Accordingly, a study was conducted to further validate whether FMD with antiseptics or FMS without the use of antiseptics within 24 h provides greater clinical improvement than Q-SRP in patients with chronic periodontitis. Medline (via OVID), EMBASE (via OVID), PubMed and CENTRAL databases were searched up to 27 January 2015. Randomized controlled trials comparing FMD or FMS with Q-SRP after at least 3 mo were included. Meta-analysis was performed to obtain the weighted mean difference (WMD), together with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals. Thirteen articles were included in the meta-analysis. The WMD of probing pocket depth reduction was 0.25 mm (p < 0.05) for FMD vs. Q-SRP in single-rooted teeth with moderate pockets, and clinical attachment level gain in single- and multirooted teeth with moderate pockets was 0.33 mm (p < 0.05) for FMD vs. Q-SRP. Except for those, no statistically significant differences were found in the other subanalyses of FMD vs. Q-SRP, FMS vs. Q-SRP and FMD vs. FMS. Therefore, the meta-analysis results showed that FMD was better than Q-SRP for achieving probing pocket depth reduction and clinical attachment level gain in moderate pockets. Additionally, regardless of the treatment, no serious complications were observed. FMD, FMS and Q-SRP are all effective for the treatment of adult chronic periodontitis, and they do not lead to any obvious discomfort among patients. Moreover, FMD had modest additional clinical benefits over Q-SRP, so we prefer to recommend FMD as the first choice for the treatment of adult chronic periodontitis.

Full-mouth treatment modalities (within 24 hours) for chronic periodontitis in adults

BACKGROUND

Periodontitis is chronic inflammation that causes damage to the soft tissues and bones supporting the teeth. Mild to moderate periodontitis affects up to 50% of adults. Conventional treatment is quadrant scaling and root planing. In an attempt to enhance treatment outcomes, alternative protocols for anti-infective periodontal therapy have been introduced: full-mouth scaling (FMS) and full-mouth disinfection (FMD), which is scaling plus use of an antiseptic. This review updates our previous review of full-mouth treatment modalities, which was published in 2008.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the clinical effects of 1) full-mouth scaling (over 24 hours) or 2) full-mouth disinfection (over 24 hours) for the treatment of chronic periodontitis compared to conventional quadrant scaling and root planing (over a series of visits at least one week apart). A secondary objective was to evaluate whether there was a difference in clinical effect between full-mouth disinfection and full-mouth scaling.

SEARCH METHODS

The following electronic databases were searched: the Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register (to 26 March 2015), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; The Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 2), MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to 26 March 2015), EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 26 March 2015) and CINAHL via EBSCO (1937 to 26 March 2015). We searched the US National Institutes of Health Trials Register (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing studies. There were no restrictions regarding language or date of publication in the searches of the electronic databases. We scanned reference lists from relevant articles and contacted the authors of eligible studies to identify trials and obtain additional information.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with at least three months of follow-up that evaluated full-mouth scaling and root planing within 24 hours with adjunctive use of an antiseptic such as chlorhexidine (FMD) or without the use of antiseptic (FMS), compared to conventional quadrant scaling and root planing (control). Participants had a clinical diagnosis of chronic periodontitis according to the International Classification of Periodontal Diseases. We excluded studies of people with aggressive periodontitis, systemic disorders or who were taking antibiotics.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Several review authors independently conducted data extraction and risk of bias assessment (which focused on method of randomisation, allocation concealment, blinding of examiners and completeness of follow-up). Our primary outcome was tooth loss and secondary outcomes were change in probing pocket depth (PPD), bleeding on probing (BOP) and probing attachment (i.e. clinical attachment level; CAL), and adverse events. We followed the methodological guidelines of The Cochrane Collaboration.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 12 trials, which recruited 389 participants. No studies assessed the primary outcome tooth loss.Ten trials compared FMS and control; three of these were assessed as being at high risk of bias, three as unclear risk and four as low risk. There was no evidence for a benefit for FMS over the control for change in probing pocket depth (PPD), gain in probing attachment (i.e. clinical attachment level; CAL) or bleeding on probing (BOP). The difference in changes between FMS and control for whole mouth PPD at three to four months was 0.01 mm higher (95% CI -0.17 to 0.19, three trials, 82 participants). There was no evidence of heterogeneity. The difference in changes for CAL was 0.02 mm lower (95% CI -0.26 to 0.22, three trials, 82 participants), and the difference in change in BOP was 2.86 per cent of sites lower (95% CI -7.65 to 1.93, four trials, 120 participants).We included six trials in the meta-analyses comparing FMD and control, with two trials assessed as being at high risk of bias, one as low and three as unclear. The analyses did not indicate a benefit for FMD over the control for PPD, CAL or BOP. The difference in changes for whole-mouth PPD between FMD and control at three to four months was 0.13 mm higher (95% CI -0.09 to 0.34, two trials, 44 participants). There was no evidence of heterogeneity. The difference in changes for CAL was 0.04mm higher (95% CI -0.25 to 0.33, two trials, 44 participants) and the difference in change in BOP being 12.59 higher for FMD (95% CI -8.58 to 33.77, three trials, 68 participants).Three trials were included in the analyses comparing FMS and FMD. The mean difference in PPD change at three to four months was 0.11 mm lower (-0.34 to 0.12, two trials, 45 participants) indicating no evidence of a difference between the two interventions. There was a difference in the gain in CAL at three to four months (-0.25 mm, 95% CI -0.42 to -0.07, two trials, 45 participants), favouring FMD but this was not found at six to eight months. There was no evidence for a difference between FMS and FMD for BOP (-1.59, 95% CI -9.97 to 6.80, two trials, 45 participants).Analyses were conducted for different teeth types (single- or multi-rooted) and for teeth with different levels of probing depth at baseline, for PPD, CAL and BOP. There was insufficient evidence of a benefit for either FMS or FMD.Harms and adverse events were reported in eight studies. The most important harm identified was an increased body temperature after FMS or FMD treatments.We assessed the quality of the evidence for each comparison and outcome as 'low' because of design limitations leading to risk of bias and because of the small number of trials and participants, which led to imprecision in the effect estimates.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The inclusion of five additional RCTs in this updated review comparing the clinical effects of conventional mechanical treatment with FMS and FMD approaches for the treatment of chronic periodontitis has not changed the conclusions of the original review. From the twelve included trials there is no clear evidence that FMS or FMD provide additional benefit compared to conventional scaling and root planing. In practice, the decision to select one approach to non-surgical periodontal therapy over another should include patient preference and the convenience of the treatment schedule.

Influence of intra-pocket anesthesia gel on treatment outcome in periodontal patients: a randomized controlled trial

AIM

Compare the treatment outcome after scaling and root-planing using local anesthesia gel or injected local anesthesia.

MATERIAL AND METHOD

Thirty-eight patients with periodontitis and good general health were included in a randomized, single-blind, split-mouth clinical trial. Probing depths and clinical attachment levels were recorded at baseline and 6 weeks after treatment. Performed treatment procedures were scaling and root planing using two types of local anesthesia for separate treatment appointments. Anesthetics used were intra-pocket lidocaine and prilocaine gel (2.5% each) and injected articaine (1:100,000 adrenaline). Type of anesthesia for first appointment was randomized and switched for second appointment. Patients' pain perception and anesthesia acceptance were recorded on questionnaires.

RESULTS

No influence of applied type of anesthesia could be detected for change of probing pocket depths and clinical attachment level (p > 0.05). These findings are valid even for deeper pockets. Gel-group had significant higher intra-operative pain perception. In retrospect 69% of patients favored gel.

CONCLUSION

Treatment outcome is not compromised by use of anesthesia gel in comparison to injected anesthesia. The same beneficial results for probing pocket depths and clinical attachment gain could be detected. The majority of patients prefer local anesthesia gel despite a slightly greater procedural discomfort.

Diagnosis and anti-infective therapy of periodontitis

Periodontal diseases (gingivitis and periodontitis) are chronic bacterial infections with a remarkably high prevalence and morbidity. Periodontitis, in contrast to gingivitis, is not reversible, is associated with certain bacterial species and affects all of the soft tissue and bone that support teeth. Among the periodontal pathogens, species, such as Aggregatibacter (Actinobacillus) actinomycetemcomitans, Porphyromonas gingivalis, Prevotella intermedia, Tannerella forsythensis, and several forms of uncultivable spirochetes play the major role in the pathogenesis. In severe chronic, recurrent and especially aggressive forms of periodontitis, diagnosis of the species involved and, whenever possible, an optimized evidence-based antimicrobial treatment is indicated. In order to monitor alarming bacterial changes in the periodontal pocket, several techniques, namely microscopy, culture, immunoassays, enzyme tests and DNA-based techniques, have been established and the methods are described in the first part of this review. In the second part, the selection and use of locally delivered (topical) and systemic antibiotics used adjunctively in periodontal therapy are discussed.

Photodynamic therapy associated with full-mouth ultrasonic debridement in the treatment of severe chronic periodontitis: a randomized-controlled clinical trial

Background:

Photodynamic therapy (PDT) is a method of microbial reduction which can benefit periodontal treatment in areas of difficult access, such as deep pockets and furcations. The aim of this randomized controlled clinical trial was to evaluate the effects of PDT as an adjunct to full-mouth ultrasonic debridement in the treatment of severe chronic periodontitis.

Material and Methods:

Twenty-two patients with at least one pocket with a probing depth (PD) of ≥7 mm and one pocket with a PD of ≥5 mm and bleeding on probing (BOP) on each side of the mouth were included, characterizing a split mouth design. The control group underwent full-mouth ultrasonic debridement and the test group received the same treatment associated with PDT. The PDT was performed on only one side of the mouth and the initial step consisted of subgingival irrigation with 0.005% methylene blue dye. Two minutes after applying the photosensitizer, the low power laser - AsGaAl (Photon Lase III - PL7336, DMC, São Carlos -São Paulo, Brazil) was applied (660 nm, 100 mW, 9 J, 90 seconds per site, 320 J/cm², diameter tip 600 µm).The following clinical parameters were evaluated: plaque index, gingival index, BOP, gingival recession (GR), PD, and clinical attachment level (CAL). All parameters were collected before, 1, 3 and 6 months after treatment.

Results:

An improvement in BOP, PD and CAL was observed after treatment, in both groups, but without any difference between them. After 6 months, the PD decreased from 5.11±0.56 mm to 2.83±0.47 mm in the test group (p<0.05) and from 5.15±0.46 mm to 2.83±0.40 mm in the control group (p<0.05). The CAL changed, after 6 months, from 5.49±0.76 mm to 3.41±0.84 mm in the test group (p<0.05) and from 5.53±0.54 to 3.39±0.51 mm in the control group (p<0.05).

Conclusion:

Both approaches resulted in significant clinical improvements in the treatment of severe chronic periodontits, however, the PDT did not provide any additional benefit to those obtained with full-mouth ultrasonic debridement used alone.

Minimally-invasive non-surgical periodontal therapy

Periodontitis is a complex disease that has both oral and systemic consequences. The treatment of periodontitis may be both surgical and non-surgical but, in recent years, there has been a shift towards managing disease non-surgically in preference to surgery. Fundamental to all types of therapy is the patient's role in disease control, in the form of self-performed plaque control, and it is important that the patient understands this. Non-surgical periodontal therapy has a long history and has traditionally been carried out using a variety of hand and powered instruments, the objective being root surface disinfection by the removal of plaque, calculus and contaminated root cementum. However, over the last 30 years or so, it has become apparent that calculus does not cause disease, cementum does not become significantly infected and bacteria and their toxins are only loosely adherent to the diseased root surface. This has led to the development of less invasive instrumentation principles which may be better for patients, more cost-effective and more easily applied in different clinical settings.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

This paper aims to describe and justify a minimally-invasive approach to the management of the diseased root surface in periodontitis, to clarify the terminology used and to suggest how these principles may be applied in general practice.

Debridamento ultrassônico de boca toda no tratamento da periodontite crônica: uma revisão sistematizada

INTRODUÇÃO: O debridamento ultrassônico de boca toda visa a uma instrumentação mais leve e conservadora da superfície radicular, evitando a recolonização da bolsa periodontal. OBJETIVO: Este trabalho verificou os efeitos do debridamento subgengival com o uso de ultrassom sobre os parâmetros clínicos periodontais no tratamento da periodontite crônica por meio de uma revisão na literatura. MATERIAL E MÉTODO: A revisão foi realizada nas bases de busca bibliográfica PubMed, Lilacs, Scielo, Medline e Centro de Registro de Ensaios Clínicos Controlados (Biblioteca Cochrane). Foram incluídas publicações na língua inglesa que abordaram estudos clínicos de intervenção em humanos, randomizados e controlados, e que utilizaram o debridamento ultrassônico para o tratamento não cirúrgico da periodontite crônica. RESULTADO: Inicialmente, foram encontradas 167 referências e, a partir da análise dos títulos e resumos, dez estudos perfizeram as características exigidas e foram considerados válidos para a realização desta revisão. Os estudos mostraram que a abordagem pelo debridamento ultrassônico pode ser terapia favorável ao tratamento da periodontite crônica. CONCLUSÃO: O tratamento da periodontite crônica por meio do debridamento ultrassônico periodontal de boca toda produz resultados clínicos semelhantes aos conseguidos na raspagem e no alisamento radicular convencionais.

Clinical effects of an essential oil solution used as a coolant during ultrasonic root debridement

AIM

The use of chlorhexidine and povidone iodine solutions applied as a coolant during ultrasonic root debridement for the treatment of chronic periodontitis has been described. Hitherto, this application has not yet been extensively investigated for essential oil solutions. The goal was to clinically explore this and to compare to water irrigation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Thirty-five chronic periodontitis patients participated in a single-blind randomized controlled clinical study. Patients were randomly allocated to the control group (n=18) or test group (n=17) receiving oral hygiene instructions and ultrasonic root debridement using water as a coolant, respectively, a pure essential oil solution. Oral hygiene was reinforced if necessary at each occasion, and clinical parameters were collected at baseline and after 1 and 3 months.

RESULTS

Significant pocket reduction (control, 1.02 mm; test, 0.89 mm) and clinical attachment gain (control and test, 0.48 mm) were shown in both groups. However, there were no significant differences between the groups at any point in time for any of the parameters.

CONCLUSION

Essential oil solutions do not offer a clinical benefit over water when used as a coolant during ultrasonic root debridement for the treatment of chronic periodontitis.

Non-surgical management of periodontal disease

Non-surgical removal of plaque and calculus has been part of the initial phase of the management of patients with gingivitis and periodontitis for decades. It consists of patient motivation and oral hygiene instruction as well as mechanical removal of supra and subgingival plaque deposits. The purpose of this review was to assess recent changes. The article reports on changes in our understanding of plaque as a biofilm, developments in patient plaque control, chemical plaque control and scaling instruments. It also comments on full-mouth disinfection, the use of lasers and host modulation. Modern technology has made removal of microbial deposits by the patient and dental professionals more efficient. However, other advancements need to be used in conjunction with mechanical debridement at this time.

Systematic review on the effect of rinsing with povidone-iodine during nonsurgical periodontal therapy

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

The existing literature is inconsistent regarding whether there is any additional effect of povidone-iodine (PVP-iodine) as an adjunctive to scaling and root planing, and, if there is an effect, what its size is. Therefore, the aim of this study was to assess the additional effect of PVP-iodine as an adjunct to scaling and root planing compared with water, saline or no rinse in the treatment of chronic periodontitis.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

An electronic literature search of the databases PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central Library, and a handsearch, were performed (up to November 2008). Two reviewers independently identified and selected screened abstracts for possible inclusion, and assessed randomized, controlled clinical trials comparing the additional benefit of PVP-iodine with water, saline rinsing or no rinsing in the nonsurgical periodontal therapy of patients with chronic periodontitis. A fixed-effects meta-analysis was conducted in the absence of statistically significant heterogeneity.

RESULTS

A small, but statistically significant additional beneficial effect of the adjunctive use of PVP-iodine with enhanced probing pocket depth reductions of 0.28 mm (95% confidence interval: 0.08 to 0.48, p = 0.007) was found. There was no significant heterogeneity between studies (I(2) = 0%). However, most of the studies included in the meta-analysis were of low quality, and the treatment modalities showed various differences such as the use of PVP-iodine at different concentrations and application modalities. Nevertheless, single-rooted teeth, in particular, showed an additional benefit after scaling and root planing with PVP-iodine, particularly when the treatment was repeated during the healing stage.

CONCLUSION

The adjunctive use of PVP-iodine during scaling and root planing may increase the clinical pocket depth reduction, although the clinical significance is small to moderate.

The use of povidone-iodine and hydrogen peroxide mixture as an adjunct to non-surgical treatment of slight to moderate chronic periodontitis

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical effects of the adjunctive use of povidone-iodine with or without hydrogen peroxide as coolant and disinfectant during ultrasonic scaling and root planing in the treatment of chronic periodontitis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Sixteen patients initially participated in the study. Thirteen patients (8 males and 5 females) completed the 3-month follow-up period. Their mean (±SD) age was 42.92 ± 7.55 years. In each experimental subject, the mouth was split into four quadrants. A randomly selected quadrant was chosen to receive one of the three treatment group modalities which were: Group 1 - ultrasonic scaling and root planing plus irrigation with 1% povidone-iodine and 3.0% hydrogen peroxide mixture; Group 2 - ultrasonic scaling and root planing plus irrigation with 1% povidone-iodine; Group 3 - ultrasonic scaling and root planing plus irrigation with normal saline. The fourth quadrant served as a control group.

RESULTS

At the 3-month evaluation, there was no significant difference between the three treatment groups in terms of probing depth reduction, clinical attachment gain, gingival recession increase, reduction in the bleeding upon probing or plaque score reduction (P > 0.05). However, the three treatment groups had statistically significant higher mean reduction in the probing depth, gain in the clinical attachment level and reduction in the bleeding upon probing than the control group (P < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

There were no added benefits of using a mixture of povidone-iodine and hydrogen peroxide or povidone-iodine as disinfectants during ultrasonic scaling and root planing in the treatment of chronic periodontitis.

Full-mouth treatment versus quadrant root surface debridement in the treatment of chronic periodontitis: a systematic review

BACKGROUND AND AIMS

Non-surgical periodontal therapy has been proven to be an effective treatment for patients with chronic periodontitis. Conventional non-surgical therapy by debridement of the root surfaces is performed on a quadrant basis with 1-2 week intervals. This time interval may result in re-colonisation by the bacteria of the instrumented pockets and impair healing. Therefore, a new approach of full-mouth non-surgical therapy to be completed within two consecutive days with (full-mouth disinfection) or without (full-mouth debridement) use of oral antiseptics has been suggested. The aim of this review was to compare the clinical outcomes of the three modalities of non-surgical therapy (full-mouth disinfection [FMD], full-mouth debridement [FRp], quadrant scaling and root planing [Q]).

METHODS

Standard searches of Medline and Embase databases and appropriate hand searching provided the published studies, which were then assessed against pre-determined inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis was performed wherever possible using Review Manager 4.2 software.

RESULTS

Seven randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were included in the review and these failed to show any statistically significant differences between the FRp and Q approaches. Further studies are required to reach conclusion regarding the advantages of FMD approach.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

Mechanical debridement is an important component of treatment for chronic periodontitis and this review suggests that both the traditional quadrant approach and the newer the full-mouth debridement could be equally effective.

Clinical and microbiological effects of an essential-oil-containing mouth rinse applied in the "one-stage full-mouth disinfection" protocol--a randomized doubled-blinded preliminary study

The aim of this randomized double-blinded preliminary study was to evaluate the clinical and microbiological long-term effects of an essential-oil-containing mouth rinse as the active agent utilized in the "one-stage full-mouth disinfection protocol." Probing pocket depth and plaque and gingival indices were evaluated by the same calibrated examiner in all teeth of 20 moderate chronic periodontitis subjects. Presence of Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans, Porphyromonas gingivalis, and Tannerella forsythensis were determined by polymerase chain reaction in nonstimulated saliva, tongue dorsum, and pooled subgingival samples. The subjects were randomized into two groups: full-mouth disinfection plus essential oils (Listerine) or full-mouth disinfection plus placebo. Clinical and microbial parameters were evaluated at baseline (T0), 45 (T1) and 180 (T2) days after therapy and analyzed using analysis of variance, Student t, and Wilcoxon tests (p < 0.05). No significant differences were observed between groups regarding clinical measurements at baseline. However, in the later examinations, T1 and T2, the test group always presented higher reductions of pocket depth, plaque index, and gingival index compared to the control group. The essential-oils group revealed significant reduction on occurrence of P. gingivalis in saliva comparing baseline and 45 days; this difference still remain at 180 days. The essential-oil-containing mouth rinse demonstrated beneficial effects on clinical parameters. Microbiological findings were less consistent. The results of this preliminary study suggest further investigations.

Full-mouth treatment concepts for chronic periodontitis: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

To systematically review the effectiveness of full-mouth treatment concepts for chronic periodontitis.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A search was conducted for randomized, controlled clinical trials including full-mouth scaling with (FMD) or without (FMS) the use of antiseptics and quadrant scaling (control). Data sources included COHG, CENTRAL, MEDLINE and EMBASE. Reviewers independently conducted data abstraction and quality assessment. The primary outcome was tooth loss; secondary outcomes were the reductions of PPD and BOP and a gain of CAL.

RESULTS

Of 216 identified abstracts, seven trials were included. Meta-analysis revealed a weighted mean difference (WMD) for the reduction of PPD between FMD and control of 0.53 mm [95% confidence interval (CI) (0.28, 0.77), p<0.0001] in moderately deep pockets of single-rooted teeth. The WMD for gain in CAL was 0.33 mm [95% CI (0.04, 0.63), p=0.03] in moderately deep pockets of single- and multi-rooted teeth. Comparing FMD and FMS, the WMD for the reduction of CAL amounted to 0.74 mm [95% CI (0.17, 1.31), p=0.01] in deep pockets of multi-rooted teeth in favour of FMS. For BOP a WMD -18.0% [95% CI (-34.30, -1.70), p=0.03] was calculated in deep pockets of single-rooted teeth in favour of FMD.

CONCLUSIONS

In adults with chronic periodontitis only minor differences in treatment effects were observed between the treatment strategies.

Full-mouth disinfection for the treatment of adult chronic periodontitis

BACKGROUND

In an attempt to enhance treatment outcomes, alternative protocols for anti-infective periodontal therapy have been introduced.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of full-mouth disinfection or full-mouth scaling compared to conventional quadrant scaling for periodontitis.

SEARCH STRATEGY

Data sources included electronic databases, handsearched journals and contact with experts. The Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched. Reference lists from relevant articles were scanned and the authors of eligible studies were contacted to identify trials and obtain additional information. Date of most recent searches: December 2006: (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2006, Issue 4).

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials were selected with at least 3 months follow up comparing full-mouth scaling and root planing within 24 hours with (FMD) or without (FMS) the adjunctive use of an antiseptic (chlorhexidine) with conventional quadrant scaling and root planing (control). The methodological quality of the studies was assessed within the data extraction form, mainly focusing on: method of randomisation, allocation concealment, blindness of examiners and completeness of follow up.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data extraction and quality assessment were conducted independently by multiple review authors. The primary outcome measure was tooth loss, secondary outcomes were reduction of probing depth, bleeding on probing and gain in probing attachment. The Cochrane Collaboration statistical guidelines were followed.

MAIN RESULTS

The search identified 216 abstracts. Review of these abstracts resulted in 12 publications for detailed review. Finally, seven randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which met the criteria for eligibility were independently selected by two review authors. None of the studies included reported on tooth loss. All treatment modalities led to significant improvements in clinical parameters after a follow up of at least 3 months. For the secondary outcome, reduction in probing depth, the mean difference between FMD and control was 0.53 mm (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.28 to 0.77) in moderately deep pockets of single rooted teeth and for gain in probing attachment 0.33 mm (95% CI 0.04 to 0.62) in moderately deep single and multirooted teeth. Comparing FMD and FMS the mean difference in one study for gain in probing attachment amounted to 0.74 mm in favour of FMS (95% CI 0.17 to 1.31) for deep pockets in multirooted teeth, while another study reported a mean difference for reduction in bleeding on probing of 18% in favour of FMD (95% CI -33.74 to -2.26) for deep pockets of single rooted teeth. No significant differences were observed for any of the outcome measures, when comparing FMS and control.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In patients with chronic periodontitis in moderately deep pockets slightly more favourable outcomes for pocket reduction and gain in probing attachment were found following FMD compared to control. However, these additional improvements were only modest and there was only a very limited number of studies available for comparison, thus limiting general conclusions about the clinical benefit of full-mouth disinfection.

Comparison Between Full-Mouth Scaling and Root Planing and Quadrant-Wise Basic Therapy of Aggressive Periodontitis: 6-Month Clinical Results

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to test the hypothesis that there are no differences in clinical parameters in generalized aggressive periodontitis patients after full-mouth scaling and root planing (FRP) or quadrant-wise basic periodontal therapy (BPT) when combined with an antibiotic regimen.

METHODS

Patients were allocated randomly to BPT (N = 15; mean age: 29.5 +/- 5.7 years) or FRP (N = 15; mean age: 28.4 +/- 5.7 years). All subjects received oral hygiene instructions including the use of a 0.12% chlorhexidine mouthrinse solution twice a day for 2 months. Patients also received amoxicillin, 500 mg, and metronidazole, 250 mg, three times a day for 7 days. Probing depth (PD), clinical attachment level, visible plaque, and bleeding on probing were recorded at baseline and at 2, 4, and 6 months post-therapy. Statistically significant changes within and between groups were determined using the general linear model repeated measures procedure.

RESULTS

Both groups showed a significant improvement in all clinical parameters post-therapy, which was particularly evident at 2 months in the sites that had been deepest at baseline. For instance, the mean PD at sites with mean PD > or =7 mm at baseline had decreased 3.9 mm in the BPT group and 3.6 mm in the FRP group. At 6 months, the percentage of sites with PD > or =7 mm decreased from 13.2% +/- 3.2% to 0% in the BPT group and from 13.3% +/- 3.5% to 0.2% +/- 0.1% in the FRP group. No statistically significant differences were observed between groups for most clinical parameters.

CONCLUSION

Within the limits of the present investigation, FRP and BPT caused comparable clinical effects in aggressive periodontitis patients when an adjunctive combined antibiotic regimen was included.