Clinico-microbiological Efficacy of Indocyanine Green as a Novel Photosensitizer for Photodynamic Therapy among Patients with Chronic Periodontitis: A Split-mouth Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial

Adjunctive antimicrobial photodynamic therapy for treating periodontal and peri-implant diseases

BACKGROUND

Periodontitis and peri-implant diseases are chronic inflammatory conditions occurring in the mouth. Left untreated, periodontitis progressively destroys the tooth-supporting apparatus. Peri-implant diseases occur in tissues around dental implants and are characterised by inflammation in the peri-implant mucosa and subsequent progressive loss of supporting bone. Treatment aims to clean the pockets around teeth or dental implants and prevent damage to surrounding soft tissue and bone, including improvement of oral hygiene, risk factor control (e.g. encouraging cessation of smoking) and surgical interventions. The key aspect of standard non-surgical treatment is the removal of the subgingival biofilm using subgingival instrumentation (SI) (also called scaling and root planing). Antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) can be used an adjunctive treatment to SI. It uses light energy to kill micro-organisms that have been treated with a light-absorbing photosensitising agent immediately prior to aPDT.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of SI with adjunctive aPDT versus SI alone or with placebo aPDT for periodontitis and peri-implant diseases in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Oral Health Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, two other databases and two trials registers up to 14 February 2024.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) (both parallel-group and split-mouth design) in participants with a clinical diagnosis of periodontitis, peri-implantitis or peri-implant disease. We compared the adjunctive use of antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT), in which aPDT was given after subgingival or submucosal instrumentation (SI), versus SI alone or a combination of SI and a placebo aPDT given during the active or supportive phase of therapy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures, and we used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. We prioritised six outcomes and the measure of change from baseline to six months after treatment: probing pocket depth (PPD), bleeding on probing (BOP), clinical attachment level (CAL), gingival recession (REC), pocket closure and adverse effects related to aPDT. We were also interested in change in bone level (for participants with peri-implantitis), and participant satisfaction and quality of life.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 50 RCTs with 1407 participants. Most studies used a split-mouth study design; only 18 studies used a parallel-group design. Studies were small, ranging from 10 participants to 88. Adjunctive aPDT was given in a single session in 39 studies, in multiple sessions (between two and four sessions) in 11 studies, and one study included both single and multiple sessions. SI was given using hand or power-driven instrumentation (or both), and was carried out prior to adjunctive aPDT. Five studies used placebo aPDT in the control group and we combined these in meta-analyses with studies in which SI alone was used. All studies included high or unclear risks of bias, such as selection bias or performance bias of personnel (when SI was carried out by an operator aware of group allocation). We downgraded the certainty of all the evidence owing to these risks of bias, as well as for unexplained statistical inconsistency in the pooled effect estimates or for imprecision when evidence was derived from very few participants and confidence intervals (CI) indicated possible benefit to both intervention and control groups. Adjunctive aPDT versus SI alone during active treatment of periodontitis (44 studies) We are very uncertain whether adjunctive aPDT during active treatment of periodontitis leads to improvement in any clinical outcomes at six months when compared to SI alone: PPD (mean difference (MD) 0.52 mm, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.74; 15 studies, 452 participants), BOP (MD 5.72%, 95% CI 1.62 to 9.81; 5 studies, 171 studies), CAL (MD 0.44 mm, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.64; 13 studies, 414 participants) and REC (MD 0.00, 95% CI -0.16 to 0.16; 4 studies, 95 participants); very low-certainty evidence. Any apparent differences between adjunctive aPDT and SI alone were not judged to be clinically important. Twenty-four studies (639 participants) observed no adverse effects related to aPDT (moderate-certainty evidence). No studies reported pocket closure at six months, participant satisfaction or quality of life. Adjunctive aPDT versus SI alone during supportive treatment of periodontitis (six studies) We were very uncertain whether adjunctive aPDT during supportive treatment of periodontitis leads to improvement in any clinical outcomes at six months when compared to SI alone: PPD (MD -0.04 mm, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.10; 3 studies, 125 participants), BOP (MD 4.98%, 95% CI -2.51 to 12.46; 3 studies, 127 participants), CAL (MD 0.07 mm, 95% CI -0.26 to 0.40; 2 studies, 85 participants) and REC (MD -0.20 mm, 95% CI -0.48 to 0.08; 1 study, 24 participants); very low-certainty evidence. These findings were all imprecise and included no clinically important benefits for aPDT. Three studies (134 participants) reported adverse effects: a single participant developed an abscess, though it is not evident whether this was related to aPDT, and two studies observed no adverse effects related to aPDT (moderate-certainty evidence). No studies reported pocket closure at six months, participant satisfaction or quality of life.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Because the certainty of the evidence is very low, we cannot be sure if adjunctive aPDT leads to improved clinical outcomes during the active or supportive treatment of periodontitis; moreover, results suggest that any improvements may be too small to be clinically important. The certainty of this evidence can only be increased by the inclusion of large, well-conducted RCTs that are appropriately analysed to account for change in outcome over time or within-participant split-mouth study designs (or both). We found no studies including people with peri-implantitis, and only one study including people with peri-implant mucositis, but this very small study reported no data at six months, warranting more evidence for adjunctive aPDT in this population group.

Effectiveness of photodynamic therapy on the treatment of chronic periodontitis: a systematic review during 2008-2023

Objective

This study investigated the effect of photodynamic therapy on chronic periodontitis patients and then evaluated the microbial, immunological, periodontal, and clinical outcomes. The significant effects of photodynamic therapy obtained by in vitro and in vivo studies have made it a popular treatment for periodontal diseases in recent years. Photodynamic therapy is a novel bactericidal strategy that is stronger, faster, and less expensive than scaling and root planing.

Method

This study registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021267008) and retrieved fifty-three randomized controlled trials by searching nine databases (Medline, Embase, Scopus, Open Gray, Google Scholar, ProQuest, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov) from 2008 to 2023. Of 721 records identified through database searches following title and full-text analysis, and excluding duplicate and irrelevant publications, 53 articles were included in this systematic review. Fifty of the 53 eligible studies fulfilled all the criteria in the Joanna Briggs Institute's (JBI's) Checklist for RCTs; the remaining articles met 9-12 criteria and were considered high quality.

Results

The present study showed that photodynamic therapy in adjunct to scaling and root planing has the potential to improve periodontal parameters such as clinical attachment loss or gain, decrease in bleeding on probing, and probing pocket depth. In addition, photodynamic therapy decreases the rate of periodontal pathogens and inflammation markers, which, in turn, reduces the progression of periodontitis.

Conclusion

Photodynamic therapy is considered a promising, adjunctive, and low-cost therapeutic method that is effective in tissue repair, reducing chronic periodontitis, reducing inflammation, and well-tolerated by patients.

Adjunctive effects of photodynamic therapy using indocyanine green in residual pockets during periodontal maintenance therapy: A split-mouth randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Prospective studies have reported conflicting results regarding the adjunctive effect of antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) on clinical and microbiological parameters in individuals under periodontal maintenance therapy (PMT). This study aimed to evaluate the clinical and microbiological adjunctive effects of aPDT using indocyanine green (ICG) in residual sites with probing depth (PD) ≥5 mm during PMT in comparison with scaling and root planing (SRP) alone.

METHODS

A split-mouth randomized controlled clinical trial was conducted with 24 individuals in a PMT program. Contralateral quadrants with eligible residual sites were randomly assigned to either SRP + aPDT (test group) or SRP alone (control). aPDT included ICG dye and diode laser (909 nm) performed together with SRP and repeated 15 days after. Periodontal clinical parameters, periodontal inflamed surface area (PISA) index, and subgingival biofilm samples were collected at baseline (T1), 3 (T2), and 6 months later (T3). Microbiological analyses were performed by quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction.

RESULTS

Significant improvements were observed in all clinical and microbiological parameters in both groups from T1 to T3. However, no significant differences were observed regarding plaque index, PD, and clinical attachment level. Test group showed significantly greater reductions in bleeding on probing (BOP), PISA index, and Porphyromonas gingivalis and Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans levels, when compared with controls.

CONCLUSIONS

Both treatments resulted in significant clinical periodontal improvements, but with no significant differences between groups except from inflammation parameters. aPDT using ICG resulted in significant reductions in BOP and PISA index, as well as in P. gingivalis and A. actinomycetemcomitans levels.

Photodynamic Therapy in Non-Surgical Treatment of Periodontitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Aim: to evaluate the adjunctive effects of photodynamic therapy (aPDT) on nonsurgical mechanical treatment in patients with periodontitis. Materials and methods: The search strategy was conducted according to the PRISMA guidelines to answer research questions regarding the effectiveness of aPDT in association with non-surgical periodontal therapy. The mean values and standard deviations were collected by data extraction. A descriptive comparison between aPDT in association with periodontal treatment and periodontal treatment alone was performed, and meta-analyses of PPD were also performed. Both randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) were included. Results: Out of 2059 records, 14 articles on adjunctive photodynamic therapy were included because they met the eligibility criteria. A comparison between the aPDT data and the control group showed improved PPD for photodynamic therapy (SMD −0.76, p = 0.003; I2 = 88%). Statistical analysis was then applied to the three PPD subgroups. The first group included studies that used indocyanine green in association with a wavelength of 810 nm (SMD −1.79, p < 0.00001, I2 = 88%). The second group included studies that used phenothiazine chloride at a wavelength of 660 nm (SMD −0.03, p = 0.84, I2 = 0%). The last group included studies that used methylene blue photosensitizers treated with a wavelength 628–670 nm were included (SMD −0.13, p = 0.38; I2 = 0%). Conclusions: despite the limited number of RCTs and the great heterogeneity between them, it can be concluded that aPDT in association with nonsurgical periodontal treatment improved the clinical parameters at 3 months.

Randomized and Controlled Clinical Studies on Antibacterial Photodynamic Therapy: An Overview

The emergence of drug-resistant bacteria is considered a critical public health problem. The need to establish alternative approaches to countering resistant microorganisms is unquestionable in overcoming this problem. Among emerging alternatives, antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) has become promising to control infectious diseases. aPDT is based on the activation of a photosensitizer (PS) by a particular wavelength of light followed by generation of the reactive oxygen. These interactions result in the production of reactive oxygen species, which are lethal to bacteria. Several types of research have shown that aPDT has been successfully studied in in vitro, in vivo, and randomized clinical trials (RCT). Considering the lack of reviews of RCTs studies with aPDT applied in bacteria in the literature, we performed a systematic review of aPDT randomized clinical trials for the treatment of bacteria-related diseases. According to the literature published from 2008 to 2022, the RCT study of aPDT was mostly performed for periodontal disease, followed by halitosis, dental infection, peri-implantitis, oral decontamination, and skin ulcers. A variety of PSs, light sources, and protocols were efficiently used, and the treatment did not cause any side effects for the individuals.