A Randomized Double-Masked Clinical Trial Comparing Four Periodontitis Treatment Strategies: 5-Year Tooth Loss Results

Five-year radiological findings from a randomized controlled trial of four periodontitis treatment strategies

Radiographic findings from long-term studies of periodontitis treatment have rarely been reported. Although bone destruction is a prominent feature of periodontitis, the long-term effect on alveolar bone levels of different treatment strategies, with or without adjunctive metronidazole (MTZ), has not been reported. We investigated the 5-year radiographic outcome of therapy in patient groups treated with conventional scaling and root planing (SRP) or same-day full-mouth disinfection (FDIS), with or without adjunctive MTZ. Following a 3-month oral hygiene phase, 184 periodontitis patients were randomly allocated to one of four treatment regimens: (i) FDIS+MTZ; (ii) FDIS+placebo; (iii) SRP+MTZ; or (iv) SRP+placebo. Following active treatment, patients received biannual maintenance. In total, 161 patients (87.5%) completed the 5-year follow-up examination, at which the radiographic bone level (RBL), clinical attachment level, probing pocket depth, presence of plaque, and bleeding were recorded again. At the 5-year follow up examination, minor radiological bone loss was observed in the intervention groups FDIS+placebo, SRP+MTZ, and SRP+placebo; by contrast, the FDIS+MTZ group did not show any change in RBL. Full-mouth disinfection did not generally perform better than conventional SRP performed over a period of 2 to 4 weeks.

Tooth preservation vs. extraction and implant placement in periodontally compromised patients: A systematic review and analysis of studies

PURPOSE

The aim of this systematic review was to identify studies with a minimum of 5-years follow-up, reporting on the management of periodontally compromised teeth with either extraction and subsequent implant placement or teeth preservation with conventional periodontal treatment and application of regenerative procedures. The outcomes of these two approaches, based on clinical and radiographic data and the incidence of tooth- and implant-loss, were also investigated.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A systematic search for studies reporting on clinical and radiographic outcomes of periodontal treatment or replacement of periodontally compromised teeth with implants was conducted in 3 electronic databases, followed by a hand-search in 8 journals. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies, and case series with prospective design were included.

RESULTS

The initial search resulted in 1080 papers. After the first two screenings, 24 publications were selected for inclusion in this systematic review. The treatment protocols for the teeth preservation group contained nonsurgical and/or surgical periodontal treatment with or without regeneration procedures. The implant studies included extraction of periodontally involved teeth and implant placement with or without bone and soft tissue augmentation, followed by restoration with fixed dental prostheses (FDPs). Survival rates ranged between 81.8% and 100% in the tooth retention group, and between 94.8% and 100% in the implant group. In the extraction group, no complications were reported for 76.09% of the implants. Similarly, no complications were reported for 86.83% of the tooth retention group. The lack of standardized comparable studies prohibited conduction of a metaanalysis.

CONCLUSION

Both treatment approaches, treatment of periodontally compromised teeth, or tooth extraction followed by implant placement, present high survival rates. The application of bone regeneration techniques improves the long-term prognosis of periodontally involved teeth. Hence, treatment of periodontally involved teeth with subsequent application of a rigorous maintenance protocol can be a viable alternative for a number of years, before proceeding to extraction and replacement with dental implants. More well-designed randomized controlled trials are needed in order to draw definite conclusions on the subject.

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.

Hydrogels for Treatment of Oral and Maxillofacial Diseases: Current Research, Challenge, and Future Directions

Oral and maxillofacial diseases such as infection and trauma often involve various organs and tissues, resulting in structural defects, dysfunctions and/or adverse effects on facial appearance. Hydrogels have been applied...

Predictors of tooth loss during long-term periodontal maintenance: An updated systematic review

AIM

To evaluate the risk factors / predictors of tooth loss in patients with periodontitis who underwent periodontal therapy and long-term periodontal maintenance (PM).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

PubMed, CENTRAL, EMBASE, Web of Science, LILACS and Scholar were searched up to and including September 2020. Studies limited to periodontitis patients who underwent active periodontal therapy (APT) and followed a regular PM programme with 5 years follow-up minimum were eligible for inclusion in this review. Studies were included if they reported data on tooth loss during PM. Random effects meta-analyses of number of tooth loss per patient per year were conducted.

RESULTS

Thirty-six papers regarding thirty-three studies were included in this review, with three prospective 30 retrospective trials. Subgroup meta-analysis showed no differences between prospective and retrospective studies, with an average of 0.1 tooth loss per year per patient (p < 0.001). Maxillary and molar teeth were more susceptible to be extracted during long-term PM. Baseline characteristics (smoking, diabetes mellitus, cardiovascular disease, being male and teeth with furcation lesions) showed no significance as predictor of tooth loss through meta-regression. The percentage of tooth loss due to periodontal reasons ranged from 0.45% to 14.4%. The individual outcomes in each study evidenced different patient-related factors (age and smoking) and tooth-related factors (i.e. tooth type and location) were associated with tooth loss during PM.

CONCLUSION

The majority of patients undergoing long-term PM have not lost teeth. On average, long-term PM effectively causes the loss of 1 tooth per patient every 10 years. Additional prospective trials may confirm these results.

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.

Chitosan hydrogel incorporated with dental pulp stem cell-derived exosomes alleviates periodontitis in mice via a macrophage-dependent mechanism

Periodontitis is caused by host immune-inflammatory response to bacterial insult. A high proportion of pro-inflammatory macrophages to anti-inflammatory macrophages leads to the pathogenesis of periodontitis. As stem cell-derived exosomes can modulate macrophage phenotype, dental pulp stem cell-derived exosomes (DPSC-Exo) can effectively treat periodontitis. In this study, we demonstrated that DPSC-Exo-incorporated chitosan hydrogel (DPSC-Exo/CS) can accelerate the healing of alveolar bone and the periodontal epithelium in mice with periodontitis. Gene Ontology (GO) term enrichment analysis showed that treatment with DPSC-Exo/CS ameliorated periodontal lesion by suppressing periodontal inflammation and modulating the immune response. Specifically, DPSC-Exo/CS facilitated macrophages to convert from a pro-inflammatory phenotype to an anti-inflammatory phenotype in the periodontium of mice with periodontitis, the mechanism of which could be associated with miR-1246 in DPSC-Exo. These results not only shed light on the therapeutic mechanism of DPSC-Exo/CS but also provide the basis for developing an effective therapeutic approach for periodontitis.

•

DPSC-Exo/CS accelerates the healing of periodontal tissues in mice with periodontitis.

•

DPSC-Exo/CS ameliorates periodontitis by modulating the immune response.

•

The immunomodulatory effects of DPSC-Exo/CS are associated with miR-1246 in DPSC-Exo.

•

DPSC-Exo/CS is a promising therapy for periodontitis.

Protective roles of FICZ and aryl hydrocarbon receptor axis on alveolar bone loss and inflammation in experimental periodontitis

AIM

The aryl hydrocarbon receptor (AhR)-ligand axis has been shown to be involved in inflammatory diseases and bone homeostasis. However, the activation of AhR signalling pathway and the possible functions of AhR ligands in periodontitis are underexplored. This study investigated the expression of the AhR target gene cytochrome P450 subfamily B member 1 (CYP1B1) and the functions and mechanisms of the AhR ligand 6 formylindolo[3,2-b]carbazole (FICZ) in periodontitis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

CYP1B1 expression was detected in human periodontitis samples, mice with ligature-induced periodontitis and lipopolysaccharide (LPS)-induced inflammation in periodontal ligament cells (PDLCs) in vitro. FICZ was administered topically or systemically. The therapeutic functions of FICZ were detected via qPCR, micro-computed tomography and immunohistochemistry. Finally, the mechanisms of AhR signalling in periodontitis were investigated by cell assays.

RESULTS

CYP1B1 expression was downregulated in periodontitis. FICZ rescued the alveolar bone loss and mitigated the inflammatory cytokines in periodontitis mice. In vitro, FICZ pre-treatment reduced the LPS-induced inflammation in PDLCs via the increased phosphorylation of STAT3. Additionally, FICZ prompted the mineralization of PDLCs via activation of the Wnt/β-catenin signalling pathway.

CONCLUSION

AhR signalling pathway is suppressed in periodontitis and the AhR ligand FICZ can prevent periodontitis.

Antibiotic-prescribing habits among Norwegian dentists: a survey over 25 years (1990-2015)

Bacterial antibiotic resistance is a steadily growing global problem, which today is compared with issues such as global warming, ozone depletion, and extinction of species. Consequently, calls come from global, Pan-European, and national authorities to gain insight into, limit, and stringently qualify the use of antibiotics in human and veterinary medicine, as well as in food production. Dentists are not considered to be frequent prescribers of antibiotics. However, few studies have identified how much, and in which situations, dentists prescribe such drugs. The aims of the present study were to survey Norwegian dentists' antibiotic-prescribing habits in 2015 and to compare the findings with previous studies (1990 and 2004) and with the actual numbers of dispensed prescriptions obtained from the 'Norwegian National Prescription Register'. The results from 1990 to 2004 show that there was a general increase in antibiotic prescriptions by Norwegian dentists, followed by a reduction or flattening of the prescription volume curve from 2004 to 2015. Despite this, possibilities for further improvements have been identified and recommendations given for targeted campaigns to reduce the prescription volume in dentistry by a further 30%, which has been ordered by the Norwegian National Assembly.