Effects of adjunctive daily phototherapy on chronic periodontitis: a randomized single-blind controlled 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.

Effects of Antimicrobial Photosensitizers of Photodynamic Therapy (PDT) to Treat Periodontitis

Antimicrobial photodynamic therapy or aPDT is an alternative therapeutic approach in which lasers and different photosensitizing agents are used to eradicate periodontopathic bacteria in periodontitis. Periodontitis is a localized infectious disease caused by periodontopathic bacteria and can destroy bones and tissues surrounding and supporting the teeth. The aPDT system has been shown by in vitro studies to have high bactericidal efficacy. It was demonstrated that aPDT has low local toxicity, can speed up dental therapy, and is cost-effective. Several photosensitizers (PSs) are available for each type of light source which did not induce any damage to the patient and are safe. In recent years, significant advances have been made in aPDT as a non-invasive treatment method, especially in treating infections and cancers. Besides, aPDT can be perfectly combined with other treatments. Hence, this survey focused on the effectiveness and mechanism of aPDT of periodontitis by using lasers and the most frequently used antimicrobial PSs such as methylene blue (MB), toluidine blue ortho (TBO), indocyanine green (ICG), malachite green (MG) (Triarylmethanes), erythrosine dyes (ERY) (Xanthenes dyes), rose bengal (RB) (Xanthenes dyes), eosin-Y (Xanthenes dyes), radachlorin group and curcumin. The aPDT with these PSs can reduce pathogenic bacterial loads in periodontitis. Therefore, it is clear that there is a bright future for using aPDT to fight microorganisms causing periodontitis.

Bestatin as a treatment modality in experimental periodontitis

BACKGROUND

Chronic periodontitis (CP), the most prevalent dysbiotic bacteria-driven chronic inflammatory disease, is an underestimated global health problem in itself, and due to a causative relationship with other disorders such as cardiovascular diseases or Alzheimer disease. The CP pathogenesis is primarily driven by Porphyromonas gingivalis in humans, and Porphyromonas gulae in dogs. These microorganisms initiate a pathogenic shift in the composition of the tooth-surface microflora. Our objective was to evaluate antimicrobial effects of bestatin, a potential CP drug candidate.

METHODS

We evaluated bestatin bacteriostatic efficiency against periodontopathogens in planktonic cultures via microplate assay, and mono- and multispecies oral biofilm models. Neutrophil bactericidal activities, such as phagocytosis, were investigated in vitro using granulocytes isolated from the peripheral blood. The therapeutic efficacy and the immunomodulatory function of bestatin was assessed in a murine model of CP.

RESULTS

Bestatin exhibited bacteriostatic activity against both P. gingivalis and P. gulae, and controlled the formation and species composition of the biofilm. We demonstrated that bestatin promotes the phagocytosis of periodontopathogens by neutrophils. Finally, we found that providing bestatin in the animal feed prevented alveolar bone resorption.

CONCLUSIONS

We show that in a murine model of CP bestatin not only shifted the biofilm species composition from pathogenic to a commensal one, but also promoted bacteria clearance by immune cells and alleviated inflammation. Taken together, these results suggest that bestatin is a promising drug choice for the treatment and/or prevention of periodontitis and clinical trials are required to fully evaluate its potency.

The Effect of Photodynamic Therapy on the Early Outcome of Implants Placed on Patients with Periodontitis

Background: Immediate implant is a subtype of implant that is placed following tooth extraction within the socket without further delay. These implants are known to preserve the alveolar bone and minimize the total number of surgical interventions in a patient. 4 Photodynamic therapy (PDT) augments nonsurgical periodontal therapy using antibacterial mechanisms. PTD can be more effective in conjunction with scaling and root planing (SRP). The aim of this study is to assess the effects of PDT on the early outcomes of implants placed on patients with periodontitis with and without SRP at 9 months of follow-up. Materials and methods: A total of 23 implants were placed in 14 patients, with 11 in the test group and 12 in the control group. SRP was carried out prior to immediate implant placement in control sites, and PDT adjunctive to SRP (SRP + PDT) was performed in test sites before immediate implant placement. Plaque index, gingival index, probing pocket depth, clinical attachment level, and radiovisiographs were procured at baseline, 3 months, 6 months, and 9 months. Primary stability was examined at the time of implant placement, and the healing index was recorded a week later. Results: At the end of the 9 months of the study period, (SRP + PDT) group had a mean marginal bone loss of 0.95 mm, and the control group had 1.08 mm. Clinical parameters such as plaque index, gingival index, clinical attachment level, and probing depth showed definitive improvement after 9 months, compared with the baseline, but when the test and control groups were compared, the difference was statistically significant for plaque index and probing depth. The implants in both groups were followed up for a period of 9 months. There was an improvement in marginal bone loss but was not statistically significant. The survival of immediate implants in the PDT group was not different from those in the scaling and root planing group. Conclusion: The effect of PTD can be beneficially used as an adjunct to SRP. However, the effects were not significant. Photodynamic therapy can be effectively used as an adjunct to SRP owing to the better outcomes using PDT.

Light-emitting-diode-based antimicrobial photodynamic therapies in the treatment of periodontitis

The use of light-emitting diode (LED)-based photodynamic therapies in the treatment of periodontitis is increasing because these modalities are effective, safe, and painless. They are not subject to acquired drug resistance or environmental issues and are associated with no complications when used appropriately. These light sources have also been used in combination with pharmacological measures to synergize their effects and optimize therapeutic outcomes. This review focuses on optical devices used in treating periodontitis and delineates the current applications of various methods, including their utility and efficacy. The application of LEDs in periodontology is described.

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.

Clinical and microbiological effects of multiple applications of antibacterial photodynamic therapy in periodontal maintenance patients. A randomized controlled clinical study

BACKGROUND

At present, very limited data are available on the clinical and microbiological outcomes obtained following repeated application of aPDT following one single mechanical debridement.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate clinically and microbiologically the outcomes following one single session of subgingival mechanical debridement (scaling and root planing; e.g. SRP) followed by 1x immediate application of aPDT and 2 x subsequent use of aPDT without SRP.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Forty patients diagnosed with generalized chronic periodontitis that were enrolled in periodontal maintenance (supportive periodontal therapy) program, were randomly assigned to one of the two treatments: 1. SRP by means of ultrasonic and hand instruments followed by one single session of SRP followed by 1x immediate application of aPDT and 2 x subsequent applications of aPDT without SRP (test) or 2. SRP alone (control). The following clinical parameters were recorded at baseline, at 3 and 6 months: Full-Mouth Plaque Scores (FMPS), Full-Mouth Bleeding Scores (BOP), Probing Pocket Depth (PPD), Clinical Attachment Level (CAL) and Gingival Recession (RC). Additionally, microbiological samples were evaluated at baseline and six months after treatment. The primary outcome variable was BOP.

RESULTS

Both treatments improved statistically significantly (p < 0.05) the FMPS, PPD and CAL values, while no statistically significant changes occurred in terms of RC. In the test group, BOP decreased statistically significantly (p < 0.05) after 3 and 6 months, while in the control group the respective values decreased statistically significantly only at 3 months. Both treatments reduced statistically significantly the total bacteria counts (TBC) after 6 months (p < 0.05). At 6 months, the use of SRP and aPDT resulted in a statistically significant decrease in the number of all tested bacteria except A. actinomycetemcomitans while the use of SRP alone resulted only in a statistically significant decrease in the numbers of P. gingivalis, T. denticola and T. forsythia.

CONCLUSIONS

In periodontal patients enrolled in a maintenance program one single session of SRP followed by 3x application of aPDT, enhanced the clinical and microbiological outcomes compared to SRP alone.