AimThis randomized placebo‐controlled clinical trial evaluated the effect of Bifidobacterium animalis subsp. lactis (B. lactis) HN019‐containing probiotic lozenges as adjuvant to scaling and root planing (SRP) in patients with generalized chronic periodontitis.Materials and MethodsForty‐one chronic periodontitis patients were recruited and monitored clinically, immunologically, and microbiologically at baseline (before SRP) and 30 and 90 days after SRP. All patients were randomly assigned to a Test (SRP + Probiotic, n = 20) or Control (SRP + Placebo, n = 21) group. The probiotic lozenges were used twice a day for 30 days. The data were statistically analysed.ResultsThe Test group presented a decrease in probing pocket depth and a clinical attachment gain significantly higher than those of the Control group at 90 days. The Test group also demonstrated significantly fewer periodontal pathogens of red and orange complexes, as well as lower proinflammatory cytokine levels when compared to the Control group. Only the Test group showed an increase in the number of B. lactis HN019 DNA copies on subgingival biofilm at 30 and 90 days.ConclusionThe use of B. lactis HN019 as an adjunct to SRP promotes additional clinical, microbiological, and immunological benefits in the treatment of chronic periodontitis (NCT03408548).

Objective To evaluate the effects of Bifidobacterium animalis subsp. lactis HN019 (HN019) on clinical periodontal parameters (plaque accumulation and gingival bleeding), on immunocompetence of gingival tissues [expression of beta-defensin (BD)-3, toll-like receptor 4 (TLR4), cluster of differentiation(CD)-57 and CD-4], and on immunological properties of saliva (IgA levels) in non-surgical periodontal therapy in generalized chronic periodontitis (GCP) patients. Adhesion to buccal epithelial cells (BEC) and the antimicrobial properties of HN019 were also investigated. Materials and methods Thirty patients were recruited and monitored clinically at baseline (before scaling and root planing-SRP) and after 30 and 90 days. Patients were randomly assigned to Test (SRP +Probiotic, n = 15) or Control (SRP+Placebo, n = 15) group. Probiotic lozenges were used for 30 days. Gingival tissues and saliva were immunologically analyzed. The adhesion of HN019 with or without Porphyromonas gingivalis in BEC and its antimicrobial properties were investigated in in vitro assays. Data were statistically analyzed (p<0.05). Results Test group presented lower plaque index (30 days) and lower marginal gingival bleeding (90 days) when compared with Control group. Higher BD-3, TLR4 and CD-4 expressions were

No abstract

Background This double‐blind, randomized, controlled clinical trial assessed the efficacy of multiple sessions of antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) as an adjunct to surgical periodontal treatment (ST) in patients with severe chronic periodontitis (SCP). Methods Sixteen patients with SCP were treated with aPDT+ST (test group, TG) or ST only (control group, CG), in a split‐mouth design. aPDT was applied at 0, 2, 7, and 14 postoperative days only in TG. All patients were followed up for 90 days after surgery. The following clinical and microbiological parameters were assessed: clinical attachment level (CAL), probing depth (PD), gingival recession (GR), bleeding on probing (BOP), plaque index (PI), and count of 40 subgingival microbial species (checkerboard DNA‐DNA hybridization). Data were collected at baseline (preintervention), at 60 days (30 days after the end of non‐surgical therapy), and at 150 days (90 days after surgery). Results A significant reduction in PD was observed at 150 days for the TG, when compared with the CG (P ˂ 0.05). CAL gain was significantly higher in the TG at 60 and 150 days (P ˂ 0.05). Changes in the subgingival microbiota were similar between the groups (P ˃ 0.05), but the TG revealed a larger number of bacteria associated with periodontal disease at the end of the experiment compared with the CG (P < 0.05). Conclusion Multiple sessions of aPDT as an adjunct to surgical periodontal treatment significantly improved clinical parameters at 90 postoperative days.

Probiotics are investigated as single-strain and multistrain products. In the market, however, there is an increasing tendency to work with multistrain probiotics, in particular, products with a high number of different strains. There are some thoughts behind this: more strains imply more chances of success; it can mean a broader spectrum of efficacy, and there is often the hope that there are at least additive and, potentially, even synergistic effects. The present review did not find convincing evidence that these assumptions are valid. There is, however, also no strong evidence that the assumptions are incorrect and/or that there is antagonistic activity between strains in a combination. We suggest that, to answer these questions, structured research is conducted. Starting with a systematic review of meta-analyses that have compared single-strain and multistrain probiotic efficacy, dedicated human studies need to be performed, comparing single-strain and multistrain probiotics to each other and placebo. In vitro and animal studies can provide indications and may help understand mechanisms. For human, animal, and in vitro studies, it is recommended to work with the simple setup of 2 single strains, a 2-strain combination, and placebo. It is also important in such research to take into consideration the doses, as a combination product will have a higher total dose.