Systemic Ornidazole as an Adjunct to Non-Surgical Periodontal Therapy in the Treatment of Chronic Periodontitis: A Randomized, Double-Masked, Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trial

Europe's contribution to the evaluation of the use of systemic antimicrobials in the treatment of periodontitis

This narrative review celebrates Europe's contribution to the current knowledge on systemically administered antimicrobials in periodontal treatment. Periodontitis is the most frequent chronic noncommunicable human disease. It is caused by dysbiotic bacterial biofilms and is commonly treated with subgingival instrumentation. However, some sites/patients do not respond adequately, and its limitations and shortcomings have been recognized. This has led to the development of alternative or adjunctive therapies. One is the use of antimicrobials to target bacteria in subgingival biofilms in the periodontal pocket, which can be targeted directly through the pocket entrance with a locally delivered antibiotic or systemically by oral, intravenous, or intramuscular methods. Since the early 20th century, several studies on systemic antibiotics have been undertaken and published, especially between 1990 and 2010. Europe's latest contribution to this topic is the first European Federation of Periodontology, S3-level Clinical Practice Guideline, which incorporates recommendations related to the use of adjuncts to treat stage I-III periodontitis. Understanding the etiopathogenesis of periodontal diseases, specifically periodontitis, has influenced the use of systemic periodontal antibiotic therapy. Randomized clinical trials and systematic reviews with meta-analyses have demonstrated the clinical advantages of adjunctive systemic antimicrobials. However, current recommendations are restrictive due to concerns about antibiotic misuse and the increase in microbial antibiotic resistance. European researchers have contributed to the use of systemic antimicrobials in the treatment of periodontitis through clinical trials and by providing rational guidelines. Nowadays, European researchers are exploring alternatives and directing clinical practice by providing evidence-based guidelines to limit the use of systemic antimicrobials.

Unusual Findings in Trials Evaluating Adjuncts to Scaling and Root Planing: Meta-analysis (Part 1)

BACKGROUND

A number of studies in patients with periodontitis have compared scaling and root planning (SRP) combined with an adjunctive treatment to SRP alone. Within that literature, an array of studies with overlapping investigators has consistently yielded substantially greater effects of adjunctive treatments than had been previously noted. This report investigates discrepancies between that cluster of research and the most recent American Dental Association (ADA) systematic review.

METHODS

This review was preregistered at https://osf.io/4meyd/. A search using the Scopus platform identified 32 articles published from 2010 to 2017 by investigators affiliated with the Government Dental College and Research Institute (GDCRI) in Bangalore, India. The primary outcome used in this meta-analysis was the change in clinical attachment level (CAL) after 6 mo. Effect sizes were estimated using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software after categorizing agents into groups based on pharmacologic similarity.

RESULTS

The search identified 32 studies encompassing 5 sets of adjunctive agents. Across the GDCRI studies, the CAL averaged 1.67 mm (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.43-1.91 mm), substantially exceeding values reported in the ADA review (mean: 0.39 mm, 95% CI: 0.27-0.51 mm). For categories of studies in which comparable subgroup estimates were available, the evaluations yielded overlapping estimates of SRP alone, but CAL estimates were discrepant for both locally delivered antimicrobials (GDCRI studies: mean: 1.45 mm, 95% CI: 0.63-2.27 mm; ADA review: mean: 0.38 mm, 95% CI: 0.16 -0.60 mm) and systemic antibiotics (GDCRI studies: mean: 1.35 mm, 95% CI: 0.97-1.73 mm; ADA review: mean: 0.39 mm, 95% CI: 0.21-0.57 mm).

CONCLUSION

In the literature on adjunctive agents supplementing SRP, findings from investigators linked to GDCRI stand out as having significantly more favorable estimated effects. Meanwhile, some agents studied by GDCRI-linked investigators have not been investigated by other researchers. In the absence of a clear explanation for discrepant results, it is recommended that unusually favorable reported effects of adjunctive agents be viewed with caution.

KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER STATEMENT

The present meta-analysis observed an unusually large effect size of adjunctive agents to scaling and root planning in studies conducted by the same research group. These results were not consistent with trials on adjunctive agents and previous reports. As this research group has exclusively tested most of the agents, their results must be viewed with caution until other independent groups replicate the studies and reproduce the effect size.

Unusual Findings in Trials Evaluating Adjuncts to Scaling and Root Planing: Reporting Quality (Part 2)

INTRODUCTION

On the topic of adjuncts to scaling and root planing (SRP), numerous randomized clinical trials (RCTs) were published by a single group of authors and frequently reported unusually large effect sizes. A meta-analysis in part 1 of this project failed to explain the causes for these unusual findings. We assessed the reporting quality and trial registration discrepancies to examine the possibility of replicating the work of this research group as well as the overall rigor of the research methodology.

METHODS

This study was preregistered at the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/4meyd/). The Scopus platform was utilized for the RCT search on SRP adjuncts in intrabony defects in patients with periodontitis as compared with SRP alone. The search analysis was limited from 2010 to 2017, and RCTs on SRP adjuncts published by a single research group were selected for screening and inclusion. RCT registration records were assessed for consistency.

RESULTS

Out of 92 studies that were retrieved from Scopus and PubMed, 32 were included for quality assessment per the CONSORT guidelines (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials). Results showed that all RCTs were characterized by a low reporting quality. The majority of CONSORT items scored <50%, including critical items (randomization, registration, and blinding). When registration records were compared with published RCTs, several discrepancies were found. The per-protocol follow-up duration was compared against the study's initiation and termination dates. Only 38% of the RCTs presented a follow-up period within the initiation and termination dates. The remaining RCTs showed inconsistent follow-up in comparison with the initiation and termination dates.

CONCLUSION

RCTs by this group were characterized by poor adherence to reporting quality guidelines. Crucial RCT elements, such as randomization, blinding, and primary outcomes, were not reported properly. RCT registration records revealed systematic inconsistencies when compared with RCT publication. Therefore, the unusually large effects reported by this group should be viewed with extreme caution.

KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER STATEMENT

The included randomized clinical trials were characterized by poor adherence to reporting quality guidelines, missing information about important trial items, and discrepancies between the reports and trial registrations. This quality assessment should guide clinical research and show clinicians that they should be cautious when applying evidence in their clinical practice.

Overview and quality assurance for the oral health component of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), 2011-2014

BACKGROUND

Following implementation in 2009-2010 to the oral health component for the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), a full-mouth periodontal examination was continued during 2011-2014. Additionally, a comprehensive dental caries assessment was re-introduced in 2011 after a 6-year absence from NHANES. This report provides oral health content information and results of dental examiner reliability statistics for key intraoral assessments conducted by dentists during 2011-2014.

METHODS

During the 2011-2014 NHANES 17,463 persons age 1 and older representing the US civilian, non-institutionalized population received an oral health examination. From this group, 387 individuals underwent a repeat examination conducted by the survey reference examiner. A combination of examiner training and calibration, electronic data capture, and ongoing performance evaluation with statistical monitoring was used to ensure conformance with NHANES protocols and data comparability to prior data collection periods.

RESULTS

During 2011-2014, the Kappa statistics for the tooth count assessment ranged from 0.96 to 1.00, for untreated dental caries Kappa scores were 0.93 to 1.00. The overall Kappa statistics for identifying combined moderate-severe periodontitis using the CDC/AAP case definition was 0.66 and 0.69 with percent agreement of 83 to 85% during 2011-2014. When evaluating inter-examiner agreement using information collected from 3 periodontal sites for comparability to the NHANES 2003-04 periodontal examination protocols, Kappa scores for combined moderate-severe periodontitis was 0.65 and 0.80 during 2011-2014. For total mean attachment loss and pocket depth across all 6 periodontal sites, the inter-class coefficients (ICCs) ranged from 0.80-0.90 and 0.79-0.86 respectively. Site-specific mean attachment loss ICCs were generally higher for the 4 interproximal measurements compared to the 2 mid-site probing measurements and this observation was similar in 2009-2010.

CONCLUSION

During 2011-2014, results overall indicate a high level of data quality and substantial examiner reliability for tooth count and dentition; reliability for periodontal disease, across various assessments, was at least moderate. When comparing the 2011-2014 examiner performance to findings from 2003 to 2004, comparable concordance between the examiners and the reference examiner exists.

Effectiveness of systemic antimicrobial therapy in combination with scaling and root planing in the treatment of periodontitis: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

The use of systemic antibiotics in conjunction with scaling and root planing (SRP) may improve the clinical outcome and even could be essential for a successful treatment of periodontitis. However, the effectiveness and clinical safety of this combination of therapy remain unclear. The authors of this study reviewed the available literature related to this hypothesis, evaluating the effectiveness of the use of systemic antimicrobials in combination with SRP versus SRP alone in the treatment of chronic periodontitis (CP) or aggressive periodontitis (AgP).

METHODS

The authors used 3 electronic databases and hand searched articles published from April 2001 through October 2013 in selected journals. The authors selected clinical trials with a minimum of 6 months follow-up during which patients with either CP or AgP had been treated with systemic antibiotics plus SRP in comparison with SRP alone or with placebo. The authors analyzed the gain in clinical attachment level (CAL), reduction in probing pocket depth (PPD), reduction in bleeding on probing (BOP), and patient-related variables (that is, adverse effects).

RESULTS

After the selection process, the authors included 23 clinical trials in this review. Assessment of the quality of the studies revealed the risk of bias as a common finding. Overall, there was a tendency toward improvement of the measured outcomes, CAL, PPD, and BOP in studies for which systemic antibiotics were used as adjunctive therapy with SRP.

CONCLUSION

Owing to the high level of heterogeneity of the studies included in this review, the authors could not establish definitive conclusions and guidelines regarding the use of adjunctive systemic antibiotics. However, within the limitations of this review, the use of systemic antibiotics with SRP may be beneficial for specific populations. Standardized clinical disease diagnostic criteria and additional randomized controlled clinical trials are necessary to verify the effectiveness of the use of adjunctive systemic antimicrobials with SRP.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

Owing to methodological differences and biases among clinical trials evaluating systemic antibiotics adjunctive to SRP, clinicians should base their decisions to prescribe on the results of weighing both benefits and risks for each patient.

Clinical and microbiological efficacy of 3% satranidazole gel as a local drug delivery system in the treatment of chronic periodontitis: A randomized, controlled clinical trial

AIM

The present clinical trial was designed to investigate the effectiveness of subgingivally delivered satranidazole (SZ) gel as an adjunct to scaling and root planing (SRP) in the treatment of chronic periodontitis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Seventy subjects with probing depth (PD) ≥5 mm were selected. Thirty-five subjects each were randomly assigned to SRP + placebo (Group 1) and SRP + SZ (Group 2). The clinical outcomes evaluated were plaque index, gingival index, clinical attachment level (CAL), and PD at baseline; 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months interval. Furthermore, microbial analysis using polymerase chain reaction was done to estimate the number of sites harboring periodontopathogens.

RESULTS

Sixty four subjects were evaluated up to 6 months. At 6 months, the Group 2 resulted in greater mean reduction (4.10 mm) in PD as compared to Group 1 (1.49 mm), and also a greater mean CAL gain (4.20 mm) in Group 2 as compared to Group 1 (1.13 mm). These subjects also showed a significant reduction in the number of sites harboring periodontopathogens.

CONCLUSION

The use of 3% SZ gel, when used as an adjunct to nonsurgical periodontal therapy in subjects with periodontitis, achieved better results than initial periodontal treatment alone.

Non-surgical periodontal therapy with systemic antibiotics in patients with untreated chronic periodontitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this meta-analysis is to evaluate the effectiveness of different systemic antibiotics in combination with scaling and root planing (SRP) when compared to SRP alone in patients with untreated chronic periodontitis.

BACKGROUND

Although chronic periodontitis is mostly treated without adjunctive systemic antibiotics, some recent meta-analyses have shown clinical benefit for some systemic antibiotics when used as an adjunct to SRP. However, there is a wide variety of systemic antibiotic regimens used today. It remains unclear if the selected type of systemic antibiotic influences the magnitude of clinical benefit.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The MEDLINE-PubMed database was searched from their earliest records through May 16, 2013. Several journals were hand searched and some authors were contacted for additional information. Outcome measures analysed were mean bleeding on probing change, mean clinical attachment level gain and mean probing pocket depth reduction. Extracted data were pooled using a random effect model. Weighted mean differences were calculated and heterogeneity was assessed.

RESULTS

The search yielded 281 abstracts. Ultimately, 95 studies were selected, describing 43 studies meeting the eligibility criteria. Systemic antibiotics showed a significant (p < 0.05) additional pocket depth reduction for moderate (at 3 mo 0.27 mm ± 0.09, at 6 mo 0.23 mm ± 0.10 and at 12 mo 0.25 mm ± 0.27) and deep pockets (at 3 mo 0.62 mm ± 0.17, at 6 mo 0.58 mm ± 0.16 and at 12 mo 0.74 mm ± 0.30). Statistically, no specific type of antibiotic was superior over another. However, when analysing the clinical data for initially moderate pockets or deep pockets, some trends became apparent.

CONCLUSION

Systemic antibiotics combined with SRP offer additional clinical improvements compared to SRP alone. Although there were no statistically significant differences, there was a trend that for initially moderate and deep pockets, metronidazole or metronidazole combined with amoxicillin, resulted in clinical improvements that were more pronounced over doxycycline or azithromycin. Additionally, there was a trend that the magnitude of the clinical benefit became smaller over time (1 year).