二次牙周龈下刮治与牙周翻瓣术短期临床疗效比较

目的比较二次牙周龈下刮治和根面平整（scaling and root planning,SRP）与牙周翻瓣术治疗慢性牙周炎的短期临床疗效。方法选取牙周基础治疗3个月后牙周探诊深度为5～7mm的前牙或前磨牙共52颗作为研究对象,随机分为2组,二次SRP组行龈下刮治和根面平整术,翻瓣组进行改良Widman翻瓣术。分别在治疗前、治疗后3个月和6个月,检查记录探诊出血（bleeding on probing,BOP）、探诊深度（probing depth,PD）、牙龈退缩（gingival recession,GR）及临床附着水平（clinical attachment level,CAL）,并比较分析。结果二次SRP组和翻瓣组患牙的BOP阳性率、PD、GR、CAL治疗前分别为91.30%、（5.60±0.99）mm、（0.37±0.49）mm、（5.98±1.17）mm和92.13%、（5.87±1.02）mm、（0.30±0.47）mm、（6.03±1.30）mm,治疗后6个月分别为17.39%、（2.87±0.78）mm、（2.00±0.62）mm、（5.07±1.01）mm和11.23%、（2.53±0.51）mm、（2.36±0.68）mm、（4.89±0.84）mm,2组治疗后6个月各项指标与治疗前比较差异均有统计学意义（P〈0.01）。治疗后6个月2组间BOP阳性率、PD及CAL比较差异无统计学意义（P〉0.05）,但翻瓣组GR明显高于二次SRP组（P〈0.05）。结论对于前牙或前磨牙,二次SRP与牙周翻瓣术可达到相同的治疗效果,翻瓣术后牙龈退缩较二次牙周龈下刮治和根面平整后明显。     

龈下刮治配合补肾固齿丸治疗中、重度牙周炎的短期疗效评价

目的：探讨龈下刮治配合补肾固齿丸对中、重度牙周炎的短期治疗效果。方法：纳入中、重度牙周炎患者共44例,随机分为两组,每位患者选择2颗指数牙。所有患者试验前均进行龈上洁治和龈下刮治,试验组同时给予口服补肾固齿丸4g／次,2次／日,连服3个月。测定治疗前后指数牙的探诊出血（BOP）、探诊深度（PD）、附着丧失（AL）及其牙槽骨平均灰度值（MGVs）。结果：试验组BOP阳性率、PD和AL均较治疗前有明显下降（P〈0．05）,而MGVs升高（尸〈0．05）。对照组治疗后BOP阳性率和PD明显降低（P〈0．05）,但AL及MGVs无明显改善（P〉0．05）。试验组与对照组对中、重度牙周炎的短期疗效有显著差异@〈0．05）。结论：龈下刮治配合口服补肾固齿丸治疗中、重度牙周炎的短期疗效明显优于单纯龈下刮治组,可能与补。肾固齿丸能促进牙槽骨新骨形成、降低AL有关。     

半导体激光辅助治疗中重度慢性牙周炎的临床疗效分析

目的评价半导体激光辅助治疗中重度慢性牙周炎的临床疗效。方法采用随机、自身对照、单盲法。将10位中重度慢性牙周炎患者的左右侧牙列随机分为实验组和对照组,每个象限选取探诊深度(Probing depth,PD)≥6 mm的两个位点,共80个位点。初诊时进行龈上洁治,2周后,实验组龈下刮治(Scaling and root planing,SRP)+半导体激光(980 nm,2 W)照射30 s,对照组只进行SRP,比较治疗前及治疗后3个月PD、临床附着丧失(Clinical attachment loss,CAL)和探诊出血(Bleeding on probing,BOP)的变化。结果治疗前,两组各临床指标均无明显差异(P>0.05)。治疗后3个月,两组各临床指标均较治疗前明显降低(P<0.05),实验组PD(4.15±0.24)mm,CAL(5.45±0.28)mm,BOP阳性率20%,对照组PD(4.13±0.28)mm,CAL(5.15±0.30)mm,BOP阳性率42.5%。其中,实验组BOP阳性率明显低于对照组(P<0.05),两组PD和CAL的变化值无明显差别(P>0.05)。结论半导体激光辅助治疗中重度慢性牙周炎可以有效改善牙龈炎症,其长期疗效有待进一步研究。     

重度广泛型侵袭性牙周炎患者牙周序列治疗的临床研究

目的：观察重度广泛型侵袭性牙周炎（generalized aggressive periodontitis, GAgP）患者牙周序列治疗后临床指标的变化,并评价其治疗效果。方法：15例GAgP患者在龈上洁治后1个月内完成龈下刮治、根面平整及光动力治疗,刮治后4周再评估,行翻瓣及翻瓣植骨术,每3个月进行1次牙周维护,序列治疗后纵向观察12个月。在基线和维护期各时间点记录全口探诊深度（probing depth,PD）、探诊出血（bleeding on probing, BOP）和牙齿松动度,磨牙记录根分叉病变的程度。结果：在基线时患者平均PD（3．96±2．21）mm,BOP阳性位点占88．1％。序列治疗后12个月平均PD（2．36±1．28）mm,BOP阳性位点减少至8．7％,其中轻、中、重度位点治疗后PD值与治疗前比较差异有统计学意义（P〈0．05）。结论：GAgP患者经牙周序列治疗和定期牙周维护能取得良好的治疗效果。     

米诺环素对慢性牙周炎辅助治疗的疗效观察

目的 评价牙周袋局部应用米诺环素软膏联合刮治和根面平整治疗慢性牙周炎的疗效。方法 64名患中到重度慢性牙周炎的男性吸烟者随机分成SRP和SRP+M两组。对SRP组患者施行刮治和根面平整,对SRP+M组患者在刮治和根面平整的基础上,牙周袋局部应用米诺环素软膏。记录两组患者在基线、3个月和6个月时的菌斑指数（PlI）、牙龈指数（GI）、探诊出血（BOP）、探诊深度（PD）及附着丧失（AL）的变化并进行统计学分析。结果 治疗过程中有6例患者被排除,有效病例数为58例,每组29例。牙周治疗3个月和6个月后,两组患者的PlI、GI和BOP均无统计学差异（P>0.05）,但PD和AL有统计学差异（P<0.05）。治疗后3个月SRP组PD下降1.32 mm,AL减轻1.14 mm;而SRP+M组PD下降1.98 mm,AL减轻1.87 mm。对于基线检查PD≥7 mm的深牙周袋,治疗后3个月SRP组PD下降2.21 mm,AL减轻1.23 mm;而SRP+M组PD下降3.48 mm,AL减轻2.62 mm。治疗后6个月PD和AL状况与3个月相比变化不大。与SRP组相比,SRP+M组临床症状改善更明显。结论 龈下局部应用米诺环素软膏辅助治疗慢性牙周炎可取得较好的疗效,特别是对于有深牙周袋、吸烟的牙周炎患者,机械治疗联合局部应用缓释抗菌素较单纯机械治疗的疗效更好。     

大黄提取物治疗伴糖尿病重度牙周炎的疗效观察

目的: 观察大黄提取物局部应用治疗伴糖尿病重度牙周炎的临床疗效。方法: 将50例伴糖尿病的重度牙周炎患者随机分为对照组（龈下刮治和根面平整术）和实验组（龈下刮治和根面平整术+术后局部应用大黄提取物软膏）。2组患者均在治疗前、治疗后6周、治疗后12周检查牙周探诊深度(probing pocket depth, PD)、临床附着水平(clinical attachment level, CAL)、探诊出血指数(bleeding on probing, BOP)。采用SPSS 20.0软件包对实验数据进行统计学分析。结果: 相比治疗前,2组患者在治疗后6周和治疗后12周, PD、CAL、BOP均有下降,实验组低于对照组,有统计学差异。表明2组患者经过治疗后牙周状况都有明显改善,实验组改善优于对照组。整个实验过程中未发生药物不良反应。结论: 大黄提取物局部应用辅助治疗伴糖尿病的重度牙周炎有良好的临床疗效。     

牙龈卟啉单胞菌与牙周基础治疗关系的实验研究

目的应用TaqMan实时荧光定量聚合酶链反应法检测慢性牙周炎患者牙周洁刮治术（SRP）治疗前后龈下菌斑中牙龈卟啉单胞菌（P. gingivalis）的变化,分析P. gingivalis与SRP疗效之间的关系,探讨应用实时荧光定量聚合酶链反应监测和评价SRP的可能性。方法选择20例中重度慢性牙周炎患者为研究对象,检查SRP治疗前后的临床指标,包括探诊深度（PD）、临床附着丧失（CAL）和探诊出血（BOP）;采集SRP治疗前后的龈下菌斑共142个样本,应用TaqMan实时荧光定量聚合酶链反应检测样本中的P. gingivalis。构建含有P. gingivalis扩增片段的重组质粒,建立定量标准。结果慢性牙周炎患者SRP治疗后PD、CAL和BOP均明显下降（P<0.001）;治疗前P. gingivalis检出率为80.28%,治疗后下降为54.23%;治疗前P. gingivalis数量与PD相关,Kendall相关系数为0.70（P<0.001）,治疗后牙周袋内细菌数量明显减少（P<0.001）。治疗前牙周袋内P. gingivalis的定植数量与PD、CAL和BOP的改善无相关性（P>0.05）,但治疗后治疗有效位点P. gingivalis数量减少程度明显大于治疗无效位点（P<0.05）,细菌减少量与PD改善弱相关（r=0.25,P=0.04）。结论SRP治疗可以明显改善临床症状,降低P. gingivalis检出率和绝对数量;治疗前P. gingivalis定植水平对临床指标的改善没有影响,治疗后P. gingivalis数量下降程度可以反映治疗效果。TaqMan实时荧光定量聚合酶链反应可以用于牙周炎治疗效果的监测和评价。     

甲硝唑凝胶在治疗侵袭性牙周炎中的临床观察

目的观察牙周袋内使用甲硝唑凝胶治疗侵袭性牙周炎的临床效果。方法侵袭性牙周炎患者56例（256颗牙）,随机分成2组,均采用龈上洁治、龈下刮治术,治疗组采用甲硝唑凝胶牙周袋内注射治疗（注满约10mg）,每周1次,共4次;对照组口服罗红霉素片（每日2次,每次1片0.15g）和甲硝唑片（每日3次,每次1片0.1g）,每周连续服用3日,共4周。记录并分析治疗前后2周、停药2周、停药4周后的出血指数（BI）、牙体松动度、牙周袋探诊深度（PD）和牙体附着水平（CAL）。结果治疗组和对照组在治疗前牙周水平基线一致,治疗后,治疗组BI、PD、CAL均较对照组明显改善（P〈0.05）。结论牙周袋内局部应用甲硝唑凝胶能提高侵袭性牙周炎的治疗效果,是值得临床广泛应用的局部治疗侵袭性牙周炎的药物。     

伐昔洛韦联合阿莫西林和甲硝唑作为辅助疗法治疗重度慢性牙周炎的疗效观察

目的:评价伐昔洛韦联合阿莫西林和甲硝唑作为辅助疗法治疗重度慢性牙周炎的临床疗效。方法:将61例重度慢性牙周炎患者随机分为对照治疗组(n=30)和干预治疗组(n=31)。对所有患者进行口腔卫生指导、龈上洁治和抛光。龈上洁治后1周内,干预治疗组予伐昔洛韦口服,对照治疗组予安慰剂口服。在基线点以及牙周治疗后2和6个月时对所有患者进行牙周检查。采用SPSS17.0软件包对数据进行统计学分析。结果:在基线时,对照治疗组与干预治疗组间牙周指标的差异均无统计学意义。治疗后2个月和6个月,干预治疗组探诊出血(bleeding on probing,BOP)阳性位点百分比减少值、牙周探诊深度(probing depth,PD)≥4 mm的位点百分比减少值和PD的减少值均显著高于对照治疗组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05),干预治疗组临床附着水平(clinical attachment level,CAL)的减少值与对照治疗组比较虽有所升高,但差异无统计学意义。结论:在重度慢性牙周炎的牙周机械治疗过程中,与应用阿莫西林和甲硝唑作为辅助治疗相比,联合应用伐昔洛韦、阿莫西林和甲硝唑作为辅助治疗可进一步提高临床疗效。     

氯己定薄片辅助牙周治疗的疗效观察

目的评价控释药氯己定薄片(chip)辅助牙周刮治(scaling and root planing, SRP)治疗牙周炎的疗效和安全性.方法 65例成人牙周炎患者经全口SRP后,左右侧象限均至少有一个牙位探诊深度(probing depth, PD)≥5 mm且探诊出血(bleeding on probing, BOP),选此种牙为受试牙,检查和记录其临床指标,并随机选择一侧的受试牙刮治后放药,另一侧受试牙刮治后不做处理,临床观察6个月.结果用药组在第6个月时的PD减少(1.32 mm)以及附着增加(0.91 mm)均显著高于对照组(0.77 mm,0.40 mm),差异有非常显著性(P<0.001),第6个月用药组的BOP阳性率(79.4%)明显低于对照组(92.4%)(P<0.001);两组的牙面着色指数无统计学差别.44.6%的患者反映用药部位不适,主要为牙龈轻度胀痛.结论 SRP+氯己定薄片组在减少PD、增加牙周附着和减轻牙周组织炎症方面优于单纯SRP组,是一种适于牙周维护治疗的有效且安全的局部用药.     

Clinical and microbiological benefits of systemic metronidazole and amoxicillin in the treatment of smokers with chronic periodontitis: a randomized placebo-controlled study

Aim: The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical and microbiological effects of scaling and root planing (SRP) alone or combined with metronidazole (MTZ) or with MTZ and amoxicillin (AMX) in the treatment of smokers with chronic periodontitis. Methods: A double‐blind, placebo‐controlled, randomized clinical trial was conducted in 43 subjects who received SRP alone (n=15) or combined with MTZ (400 mg 3 × per day, n=14) or with MTZ+AMX (500 mg 3 × per day, n=14) for 14 days. Clinical and microbiological examinations were performed at baseline and 3 months post‐therapy. Subgingival samples were analysed by checkerboard DNA–DNA hybridization. Results: Subjects receiving MTZ+AMX showed the greatest improvements in mean probing depth and clinical attachment level. Both antibiotic therapies led to additional clinical benefits over SRP alone in initially shallow, intermediate, and deep sites. The SRP+MTZ+AMX therapy led to the most beneficial changes in the subgingival microbial profile. These subjects showed significant reductions in the mean counts and proportions of periodontal pathogens such as Tannerella forsythia, Porphyromonas gingivalis and Treponema denticola, and the greatest increase in proportions of host‐compatible species. Conclusion: Significant advantages are observed when systemic antibiotics are combined with SRP in the treatment of smokers with chronic periodontitis. The greatest benefits in clinical and microbiological parameters are achieved with the use of SRP+MTZ+AMX.     

Clinical and Microbiologic Effects of Adjunctive Metronidazole Plus Amoxicillin in the Treatment of Generalized Chronic Periodontitis: Smokers Versus Non‐Smokers

Background: The aim of the present study is to evaluate the clinical and microbiologic effects of the adjunctive use of metronidazole (MTZ) and amoxicillin (AMX) in the treatment of smokers and non‐smokers with generalized chronic periodontitis (CP). Methods: Thirty‐two smokers and 32 non‐smokers were selected and received scaling and root planing (SRP) combined with MTZ (400 mg three times daily) and AMX (500 mg three times daily) for 14 days. Clinical and microbiologic examinations were performed at baseline and 3 months after SRP. Nine subgingival plaque samples per patient were analyzed using checkerboard DNA–DNA hybridization. Results: Both groups presented a significant improvement in all clinical parameters at 3 months after therapy (P <0.05). Non‐smokers showed lower mean number of sites with probing depth (PD) ≥5 mm after therapy. Fewer non‐smokers exhibited at least nine of these sites at 3 months after treatment. Non‐smokers also presented the greatest reductions in mean PD and gain in clinical attachment between baseline and 3 months after therapy at initially deep (PD ≥7 mm) sites (P <0.01). The most beneficial changes in the microbial profile were also observed in the non‐smoker group, which showed the lowest proportions of the orange complex at 3 months, as well as a significant increase in the proportions of Actinomyces species after treatment. Conclusion: Smokers with CP benefit less than non‐smokers from treatment by the combination of SRP, MTZ, and AMX.     

Clinical changes following four different periodontal therapies for the treatment of chronic periodontitis: 1-year results

OBJECTIVE: To compare clinical changes occurring in chronic periodontitis subjects receiving SRP alone or with systemically administered azithromycin, metronidazole or a sub-antimicrobial dose of doxycycline. MATERIAL AND METHODS: 92 chronic periodontitis subjects were randomly assigned to receive SRP alone (N=23) or combined with 500 mg azithromycin per day for 3 days (N=25), 250 mg metronidazole tid for 14 days (N=24) or 20 mg doxycycline bid for 3 months (N=20). Gingival redness, bleeding on probing, suppuration, pocket depth and attachment level were measured at baseline and 3, 6 and 12 months post therapy. The significance of changes in clinical parameters within groups over time was sought using the Friedman test and among groups using ANCOVA or the Kruskal Wallis test. RESULTS: All groups showed clinical improvements at 12 months, with subjects receiving adjunctive agents showing a somewhat better response. Sites with initial pocket depth > 6 mm showed significantly greater pocket depth reduction and greater attachment gain in subjects receiving metronidazole or azithromycin than subjects in the other groups. Some subjects showed attachment loss at 12 months in each group ranging from 15% to 39% of subjects in the SDD and SRP only groups respectively. CONCLUSION: This study, demonstrated that periodontal therapy provides clinical benefits and that antibiotics provide a clinical benefit over SRP alone, particularly at initially deeper periodontal pockets.     

Effectiveness of systemic amoxicillin/metronidazole as adjunctive therapy to scaling and root planing in the treatment of chronic periodontitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: The combination of Amoxicillin and metronidazole (AMX/MET) as an adjunctive treatment to scaling root planing (SRP) has been proposed for the treatment of chronic periodontitis; however, its effectiveness and clinical safety remain to be defined. The purpose of the present meta-analysis is to assess the effectiveness of SRP + AMX/MET compared to SRP alone. Methods: An electronic search of eight databases from their earliest records through October 8, 2011 and a hand search of international dental journals for the last 15 years were conducted. Gain in clinical attachment level (CAL), reduction in probing depth (PD), secondary outcomes, and adverse events were analyzed. A random-effect model was used to pool the extracted data. The weighted mean difference (WMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) was calculated for continuous outcomes; heterogeneity was assessed with the Cochrane χ(2) and I(2) tests. The level of significance was set at P <0.05. Results: After the selection process, four randomized clinical trials were included. Results of the meta-analysis showed significant CAL gain (WMD = 0.21; 95% CI = 0.02 to 0.4; P <0.05) and PD reduction (WMD = 0.43; 95% CI = 0.24 to 0.63; P <0.05) in favor of SRP + AMX/MET. No significant differences were found for bleeding on probing (WMD = 10.77; 95% CI = -3.43 to 24.97; P >0.05) or suppuration (WMD = 1.77; 95% CI = -1.7 to 5.24; P >0.05). Conclusion: The findings of this meta-analysis seem to support the effectiveness of SRP + AMX/MET; however, future studies are needed to confirm these results.     

Microbiological changes associated with four different periodontal therapies for the treatment of chronic periodontitis

BACKGROUND/AIMS: To examine subgingival microbiological changes in chronic periodontitis subjects receiving scaling and root planing (SRP) alone or with systemically administered azithromycin, metronidazole or a sub-antimicrobial dose of doxycycline. METHODS: Ninety-two periodontitis subjects were randomly assigned to receive SRP alone or combined with azithromycin, metronidazole or sub-antimicrobial dose doxycycline. Subgingival plaque samples taken at baseline, 2 weeks, and 3, 6, and 12 months were analyzed for 40 bacterial species using checkerboard DNA-DNA hybridization. Percentage of resistant species and percentage of sites harboring species resistant to the test antibiotics were determined at each time-point. RESULTS: All treatments reduced counts of red complex species at 12 months, although no significant differences were detected among treatment groups for most species at all time-points. Both antibiotics significantly reduced counts of red complex species by 2 weeks. Percentage of resistant isolates increased in plaque samples in all adjunctive treatment groups, peaking at the end of administration, but returned to pretreatment levels by 12 months. CONCLUSION: The significant reduction of red and orange complex species at 2 weeks in the subjects receiving SRP plus azithromycin or metronidazole may have contributed to a better clinical response in these treatment groups. Therapy did not appear to create lasting changes in the percentage of resistant isolates or sites harboring resistant species.     

Clinical and microbiological benefits of strict supragingival plaque control as part of the active phase of periodontal therapy

Aim: To compare the clinical and microbiological effects of scaling and root planing (SRP) alone or combined with mechanical [professional plaque control (PPC)] or chemical [chlorhexidine rinsing (CHX)] control of supragingival plaque in the treatment of chronic periodontitis.
Material and Methods: Sixty subjects were randomly assigned to receive SRP alone or combined with PPC (twice a week) or with CHX rinsing (twice a day). The adjunctive treatments began with SRP and were continued for 42 days. Clinical and microbiological examinations were performed at baseline, 2 and 6 months post-therapy. Subgingival plaque samples were analysed for 38 bacterial species by checkerboard DNA–DNA hybridization.
Results: The two test treatments were more effective in improving probing depth and clinical attachment level (CAL) than SRP alone, even in intermediate and deep sites. CAL gain was better maintained in the CHX group. The most beneficial microbiological changes were observed in CHX-treated subjects, who showed a significant reduction in the proportions of red and orange complexes, as well as an increase in the proportions of the host-compatible bacterial species.
Conclusion: Strict plaque control performed during and after SRP improves periodontal treatment outcomes. The greatest microbiological and clinical benefits were observed with the use of CHX rinsing.     

Adjunctive Non‐Surgical Therapy of Inflamed Periodontal Pockets During Maintenance Therapy Using Diode Laser: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Background: Numerous studies have documented the clinical outcomes of laser therapy for untreated periodontitis, but very few have reported on lasers treating inflamed pockets during maintenance therapy. The aim of this study is to compare the effectiveness of scaling and root planing (SRP) plus the adjunctive use of diode laser therapy to SRP alone on changes in the clinical parameters of disease and on the gingival crevicular fluid (GCF) inflammatory mediator interleukin‐1β (IL‐1β) in patients receiving regular periodontal maintenance therapy. Methods: This single‐masked and randomized, controlled, prospective study includes 22 patients receiving regular periodontal maintenance therapy who had one or more periodontal sites with a probing depth (PD) ≥5 mm with bleeding on probing (BOP). Fifty‐six sites were treated with SRP and adjunctive laser therapy (SRP + L). Fifty‐eight sites were treated with SRP alone. Clinical parameters, including PD, clinical attachment level (CAL), and BOP, and GCF IL‐1β levels were measured immediately before treatment (baseline) and 3 months after treatment. Results: Sites treated with SRP + L and SRP alone resulted in statistically significant reductions in PD and BOP and gains in CAL. These changes were not significantly different between the two therapies. Similarly, differences in GCF IL‐1β levels between SRP + L and SRP alone were not statistically significant. Conclusion: In periodontal maintenance patients, SRP + L did not enhance clinical outcomes compared to SRP alone in the treatment of inflamed sites with ≥5 mm PD.     

Comparison of clinical outcomes following treatment of chronic adult periodontitis with subgingival scaling or subgingival scaling plus metronidazole gel

BACKGROUND, AIMS: Conventional treatment of chronic periodontitis involves mechanical debridement of periodontal pockets. Recently, subgingival antimicrobials have been used adjunctively following such debridement. This 2-centre study compared the clinical effects of subgingival scaling (SRP) with SRP plus subgingival application of 25% metronidazole gel, Elyzol (SRP+gel), in patients with chronic adult periodontitis. METHOD: Voluntary informed written consent was obtained from 45 subjects at the Eastman (mean age 46, range 34-63) and 43 subjects at RAF Halton (mean age 47, range 34-71) who participated in this blind, randomised split-mouth design study. All had at least 2 sites in each quadrant with probing pocket depth (PPD) > or = 5 mm. PPD, bleeding on probing (BOP), and clinical probing attachment levels (CAL) measured using a stent, were recorded at baseline and at 1, 3, 6 and 9 months post-therapy. After subgingival scaling of all quadrants, 2 quadrants were randomly selected to be treated with metronidazole gel. RESULTS: A paired t-test on baseline values showed no bias between groups. Both treatments effectively reduced the signs of periodontitis. At each follow-up visit, reduction in PPD, CAL and BOP after the combined treatment was greater than for SRP alone. Paired t-tests showed that the improvement in the SRP+gel group was statistically significantly better (p<0.001) than for SRP alone (mean 0.5 +/- 0.6 mm. 95% CI 0.4-0.6 mm.) Similarly, the % of sites which improved to a final pocket depth of < or = 3 mm and the % of sites which improved over the 9 months of the study by as much as > or = 2 mm were greater for SRP+gel than for SRP alone. CONCLUSIONS: At the end of the study, the mean reductions for PPD were 1.0 mm (SRP) compared to 1.5 mm (SRP+gel), and for CAL they were 0.4 mm (SRP) compared to 0.8 mm (SRP+gel), with mean difference for CAL between treatments of 0.4 +/- 0.6 mm (95% confidence intervals of 0.3-0.6 mm). The combination therapy of SRP+gel was superior to the conventional treatment of SRP alone, and these differences were maintained for 9 months.     

A comparative evaluation of the clinical effects of systemic and local doxycycline in the treatment of chronic periodontitis

In this study, the clinical efficacies of systemic doxycycline (SD) and local doxycycline (LD) in the treatment of chronic periodontitis were compared. Forty-five patients were studied in 3 main groups with 5 treatments: SD alone, SD+scaling-root planing (SD+SRP), LD alone, LD+SRP and SRP alone. Antibiotic-treated patients were given doxycycline treatment alone in 1 quadrant of their upper jaws, and doxycycline+SRP was given in the contralateral quadrant. The areas included at least 4 teeth with > or = 5 mm pockets. Probing depth (PD), clinical attachment level, gingival index, sulcular bleeding index and plaque index values were recorded at baseline and the 7th week. The results were statistically analyzed. All of the clinical parameters were significantly reduced by all treatments (P < or = 0.05). The SD and LD treatments alone provided significant clinical healings. The significant differences among the groups were only in PD at the 7th week. The LD treatment provided significantly higher PD reduction than the SD treatment (P < or = 0.05). No significant difference was found between the SD+SRP and the LD+SRP treatments. There was no significant difference between SD+SRP and SRP alone treatment (P > 0.05). The SD group showed lower PD reduction than SRP group (P < or = 0.05), while no significant difference was found between LD and SRP treatments. The LD alone treatment seemed more effective than SD alone treatment on PD reduction, but no significant difference was found between them when combined with the SRP. LD may be more preferable than SD as an adjunct to mechanical treatment since LD seems more effective than SD on PD reduction and does not have the side effects of SD.     

Mechanical therapy with adjunctive minocycline microspheres reduces red-complex bacteria in smokers

BACKGROUND: Smoking increases the risk for periodontal disease and reduces the healing response. We examined the antimicrobial and clinical effects of scaling and root planing (SRP) with and without minocycline HCl 1 mg microspheres (MM) relative to smoking status in subjects with periodontitis. METHODS: A total of 127 subjects (46 never smokers, 44 former smokers, and 37 current smokers) with moderate to advanced periodontitis were randomized to receive MM + SRP (N = 62) or SRP alone (N = 65). Subgingival plaque samples collected at baseline and day 30 were examined for the presence of 40 periodontal bacteria by DNA probe analysis. RESULTS: MM + SRP reduced red-complex bacteria (RCB) numbers and proportions to a greater extent than SRP alone, irrespective of smoking status. RCB numbers were not reduced by SRP in current smokers. The difference in the reduction in numbers of RCB by SRP relative to MM + SRP in current smokers was statistically significant (P <0.05). Numbers and proportions of orange complex bacteria (OCB) were reduced in all groups treated with MM + SRP. Proportions of OCB increased in current smokers treated with SRP alone. In current smokers, MM + SRP significantly reduced probing depth (PD), increased clinical attachment level (CAL), and reduced bleeding on probing (BOP) to a greater extent than SRP alone (P <0.05). CONCLUSIONS: SRP alone was ineffective at reducing numbers or proportions of RCB or OCB in current smokers, whereas MM + SRP significantly reduced both. MM + SRP also improved PD, BOP, and CAL to a greater extent than SRP alone independent of smoking status.