Comparison of efficacy of probiotics versus tetracycline fibers as adjuvants to scaling and root planing

Boyeena, Lavanya; Koduganti, Rekha Rani; Panthula, Veerendranath Reddy; Jammula, Surya Prasanna

doi:10.4103/jisp.jisp_590_18

Cited by 17 publications

(39 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…60 final subjects when then selected, as requested by the sample size calculation. The following mathematical formula was used for sample size calculation:

where

is the standard normal variate corresponding to 1.96 at 5% type 1 error, p is the expected proportion in population expressed as decimal and based on previous studies [ 14 , 22 ], and finally d is the confidence level decided by the researcher and expressed as decimal too [ 23 ]. Concerning the variable Plaque index an expected mean of 61% was hypothesized, with a standard deviation of 18%.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Probiotic Alternative to Chlorhexidine in Periodontal Therapy: Evaluation of Clinical and Microbiological Parameters

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Periodontitis consists of a progressive destruction of tooth-supporting tissues. Considering that probiotics are being proposed as a support to the gold standard treatment Scaling-and-Root-Planing (SRP), this study aims to assess two new formulations (toothpaste and chewing-gum). 60 patients were randomly assigned to three domiciliary hygiene treatments: Group 1 (SRP + chlorhexidine-based toothpaste) (control), Group 2 (SRP + probiotics-based toothpaste) and Group 3 (SRP + probiotics-based toothpaste + probiotics-based chewing-gum). At baseline (T0) and after 3 and 6 months (T1–T2), periodontal clinical parameters were recorded, along with microbiological ones by means of a commercial kit. As to the former, no significant differences were shown at T1 or T2, neither in controls for any index, nor in the experimental groups for adherent gingiva and gingival recession. Conversely, some significant differences were found in Group 2 and 3 for the other clinical indexes tested. Considering microbiological parameters, no significant differences were detected compared to baseline values for any group, except in Group 2 and 3 at T2 only for the percentage of the orange complex pathogens and for the copies/microliter of Prevotella intermedia and Fusobacterium nucleatum. Accordingly, although colonization of probiotic bacteria has not been assessed in this study, the probiotics tested represent a valid support to SRP with a benefit on several clinical indexes and on specific periodontopathogens. Despite this promising action, the relationship between the use of probiotics and improvement in clinical parameters is still unclear and deserves to be further explored.

show abstract

“…60 final subjects when then selected, as requested by the sample size calculation. The following mathematical formula was used for sample size calculation:

where

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Probiotic Alternative to Chlorhexidine in Periodontal Therapy: Evaluation of Clinical and Microbiological Parameters

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the clinical context, local/topical antibiotic adjuncts in the mechanical treatment o peri-implantitis have always been applied [15] without being supported by firm recom Different forms of tetracycline for local delivery are available and have been tested on periodontitis, such as nano-particles [29], fibres [30][31][32], and ointment [29]. The use of tetracycline fibres as an adjunct to scaling and root planning resulted in periodontal health improvement and, therefore, is a reliable treatment [33].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Different forms of tetracycline for local delivery are available and have been tested on periodontitis, such as nano-particles [ 29 ], fibres [ 30 , 31 , 32 ], and ointment [ 29 ]. The use of tetracycline fibres as an adjunct to scaling and root planning resulted in periodontal health improvement and, therefore, is a reliable treatment [ 33 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Local/Topical Antibiotics for Peri-Implantitis Treatment: A Systematic Review

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Most studies indicate that the mechanical removal of the bacterial biofilm from the implant surface is the central goal of peri-implantitis therapy. However, controversial results in the treatment of peri-implantitis have led to the consideration of additional strategies that include surgical approaches and chemical adjuvants. Local/topical antibiotics, such as minocycline, azithromycin, tetracycline, amoxicillin, doxycycline, and metronidazole, may improve the efficacy of the definitive treatment of the disease, but the lack of conclusive findings prevents their use in clinical practice. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the effect of local/topical antibiotics for peri-implantitis treatment. Randomised controlled studies (RCT) on patients with peri-implantitis and comparing the efficacy of local/topical antibiotics vs. placebo or mechanical debridement were included. A systematic search strategy was carried out using three registered databases (PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus). RoB2 was used to assess risk of bias. Five RCTs were identified (n = 250 patients and 333 implants). Contrast results emerged among the included studies, and a high heterogeneity level was observed. Risk of bias revealed some concerns for three studies out of five, while one study was judged at high risk. Only one study analysed the limitations of its findings. Overall, local antibiotic use can be considered a valid approach in the treatment of peri-implantitis. Therefore, future long-term clinical trials with standardised protocols and antibiotics with similar biological activity profiles should be tested to achieve a valid and definitive conclusion.

show abstract

“…Two articles ( Hallstrom et al, 2013 ; Becirovic et al, 2018 ) did not investigate periodontal disease patients. Another ( Boyeena et al, 2019 ) used subgingivally delivered probiotics. Tobita and coworkers ( Tobita et al, 2018 ) used killed bacteria, which does not meet the definition of probiotics.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Orally Administered Probiotics Decrease Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans but Not Other Periodontal Pathogenic Bacteria Counts in the Oral Cavity: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: At the initial part of the gastrointestinal tract, multiple tissues serve the normal function of food delivery. Periodontal structures are integral elements of these. When they deteriorate, it is extremely challenging to regenerate and reconstruct them. The conventional intervention for periodontal disease is scaling and root planning with the aim of reducing pathogenic bacteria. However, periodontal pathogens can rapidly recolonize treated areas. Probiotics have been proposed as novel tools for managing oral health by suppressing pathogenic bacteria through their anti-inflammatory effect, but the available data are controversial.Aim: Therefore, we performed a meta-analysis to study the effect of probiotics on periodontal pathogenic bacteria.Methods: The study was registered in PROSPERO under registration number CRD42018094903. A comprehensive literature search from four electronic databases (PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL, Embase, and Web of Science) yielded nine eligible records for statistical analysis. Studies measuring bacterial counts in saliva and supra- and subgingival plaque were included. Bacterial counts were analyzed using standard mean difference (SMD) and by a random effects model with the DerSimonian–Laird estimation.Results: The results showed a significant decrease in the overall count of Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans in the probiotic-treated group compared to the control at 4 weeks (SMD: −0.28; 95% CI: −0.56–−0.01; p = 0.045) but not later. Analyzing the bacterial counts in subgroups, namely, in saliva and supra- and subgingival plaque, separately, yielded no significant difference. Probiotics had no significant effect on the overall count of Porphyromonas gingivalis at 4 weeks (SMD: −0.02; 95% CI: −0.35−0.31; p = 0.914) or later. Subgroup analysis also revealed no significant difference between treatment and control groups nor did probiotics significantly decrease the overall and subgroup bacterial counts of Prevotella intermedia, Tannerella forsythia, and Fusobacterium nucleatum.Conclusion: Our data support the beneficial effect of probiotics in reducing A. actinomycetemcomitans counts, but not of other key periodontal pathogenic bacteria in periodontal disease patients. However, due to the complex mechanism associated with periodontal disease and the limitations of the available studies, there is a further need for well-designed randomized clinical trials to assess the efficacy of probiotics.

show abstract

Comparison of efficacy of probiotics versus tetracycline fibers as adjuvants to scaling and root planing

Cited by 17 publications

References 17 publications

Probiotic Alternative to Chlorhexidine in Periodontal Therapy: Evaluation of Clinical and Microbiological Parameters

Probiotic Alternative to Chlorhexidine in Periodontal Therapy: Evaluation of Clinical and Microbiological Parameters

Local/Topical Antibiotics for Peri-Implantitis Treatment: A Systematic Review

Orally Administered Probiotics Decrease Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans but Not Other Periodontal Pathogenic Bacteria Counts in the Oral Cavity: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About