Europe's contribution to the evaluation of the use of systemic antimicrobials in the treatment of periodontitis.

This narrative review celebrates Europe's contribution to the current knowledge on systemically administered antimicrobials in periodontal treatment. Periodontitis is the most frequent chronic noncommunicable human disease. It is caused by dysbiotic bacterial biofilms and is commonly treated with subgingival instrumentation. However, some sites/patients do not respond adequately, and its limitations and shortcomings have been recognized. This has led to the development of alternative or adjunctive therapies. One is the use of antimicrobials to target bacteria in subgingival biofilms in the periodontal pocket, which can be targeted directly through the pocket entrance with a locally delivered antibiotic or systemically by oral, intravenous, or intramuscular methods. Since the early 20th century, several studies on systemic antibiotics have been undertaken and published, especially between 1990 and 2010. Europe's latest contribution to this topic is the first European Federation of Periodontology, S3-level Clinical Practice Guideline, which incorporates recommendations related to the use of adjuncts to treat stage I-III periodontitis. Understanding the etiopathogenesis of periodontal diseases, specifically periodontitis, has influenced the use of systemic periodontal antibiotic therapy. Randomized clinical trials and systematic reviews with meta-analyses have demonstrated the clinical advantages of adjunctive systemic antimicrobials. However, current recommendations are restrictive due to concerns about antibiotic misuse and the increase in microbial antibiotic resistance. European researchers have contributed to the use of systemic antimicrobials in the treatment of periodontitis through clinical trials and by providing rational guidelines. Nowadays, European researchers are exploring alternatives and directing clinical practice by providing evidence-based guidelines to limit the use of systemic antimicrobials.

Efficacy of soft tissue substitutes, in comparison with autogenous grafts, in surgical procedures aiming to increase the peri-implant keratinized mucosa: A systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the efficacy of soft tissue substitutes compared to autogenous gingival grafts in surgical procedures aimed at increasing the width of keratinized mucosa (KM) around dental implants. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two focused questions were developed: PICOS #1) "What is the efficacy of surgical procedures using soft tissue substitutes, as compared to autogenous grafts, to increase the amount of peri-implant keratinized mucosa, in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs)?"; and PICOS #2) "What is the effectiveness of soft tissue substitutes to increase the amount of peri-implant keratinized mucosa, in RCTs, CCTs, cohort studies or case series?". Besides KM augmentation, other relevant outcomes such as clinical and radiographic peri-implant outcomes, incidence of biological complications, surgical time, or patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were collected. Meta-analyses were performed whenever possible. RESULTS: Ten publications and an unpublished study were included. KM augmentation was significantly greater for autogenous grafts (n = 6; weighted mean difference (WMD) = -0.9 mm; 95% confidence interval (CI) [-1.4; -0.3]; p = .001). However, no significant differences between autogenous grafts and soft tissue substitutes were observed when exclusively xenografts were considered (n = 5; WMD=-0.8 mm; 95% CI [-1.6; 0.0]; p = .062). Surgical time and postsurgical pain seemed to be reduced by the use of soft tissue substitutes. CONCLUSIONS: Free gingival grafts (FGG) are more effective in the augmentation of KM mucosa around dental implants than soft tissue substitutes. However, substitutes of xenogeneic origin may be an alternative to autogenous tissues.

Traducción al español de la Guía de Práctica Clínica de Nivel S3 de la Federación Europea de Periodoncia (EFP) - Tratamiento de la periodontitis en Estadios I-III

Resumen. Antecedentes: La clasificación de la periodontitis recientemente introducida en el World Workshop de 2017, que incorpora estadios y grados de la enfermedad, tiene por objeto vincular la clasificación de la enfermedad con los enfoques preventivos y terapéuticos, ya que no solo describe su gravedad y el alcance, sino también el grado de complejidad y el riesgo de un individuo. Por lo tanto, es necesario contar con directrices clínicas basadas en la evidencia que ofrezcan recomendaciones para tratar la periodontitis. Objetivo: El objetivo del presente proyecto fue desarrollar una Guía de Práctica Clínica (CPG, por sus siglas en inglés, clinical practice guideline) de nivel S3 para el tratamiento de la periodontitis en los estadios I-III. Material y métodos: Estas CPG S3 se elaboraron bajo los auspicios de la Federación Europea de Periodoncia (EFP), siguiendo la orientación metodológica de la Asociación de Sociedades Médico-Científicas de Alemania y la estructura Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). El proceso, riguroso y transparente, incluyó la síntesis de las investigaciones relevantes en 15 revisiones sistemáticas encargadas de manera específica, la evaluación de la calidad y la solidez de la evidencia, la formulación de recomendaciones específicas, así como lograr un acuerdo, sobre esas recomendaciones, por parte de expertos destacados y una amplia base de partes interesadas. Resultados: Estas CPG S3 abordan el tratamiento de la periodontitis (estadios I, II y III) utilizando un enfoque gradual preestablecido del tratamiento que, según el estadio de la enfermedad, debe ser incremental, incluyendo en cada caso diferentes intervenciones. Se llegó a un acuerdo sobre las recomendaciones relativas a las diferentes intervenciones, dirigidas a: i) cambios de comportamiento, control de biofilm supragingival, inflamación gingival y factores de riesgo; ii) instrumentación supragingival y subgingival, con y sin tratamientos coadyuvantes; iii) diferentes tipos de intervenciones quirúrgicas periodontales; y iv) el mantenimiento periodontal necesario para extender los beneficios a lo largo del tiempo. Conclusión: Esta Guía S3 informa a los clínicos, a los sistemas de salud, a los encargados de formular políticas sanitarias e, indirectamente, al público, sobre las modalidades disponibles y más eficaces para tratar la periodontitis y mantener una dentición sana durante toda la vida, de acuerdo con la evidencia disponible en el momento de su publicación.

Screening of undiagnosed hyperglycaemia in the dental setting: The DiabetRisk study. A field trial.

AIM: To evaluate the efficacy of different screening protocols for undiagnosed hyperglycaemia in a Research Network of Dental Clinics coordinated by the Spanish Society of Periodontology (SEPA). MATERIAL AND METHODS: A total of 1143 patients were included in the study. Participants filled a questionnaire considering diabetes risk factors (FINDRISC) and received a periodontal screening examination. Patients with a slightly elevated score according to the Findrisc (≥7), received a point-of-care HbA1c and were eventually referred to their physician for confirmatory diagnosis. Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curves were used to assess the performance of various predictive models with confirmed hyperglycaemia as outcome. RESULTS: From this population, 97 (8.5%) were finally diagnosed of diabetes (n = 28; 2.5%) or prediabetes (n = 69; 6.0%). When only including the results from the FINDRISC questionnaire, the model reported an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.866 (95% confidence interval - CI [0.833; 0.900]). This model significantly improved when a basic periodontal examination (EPB Code; AUC = 0.876; 95% CI [0.845: 0.906]; p = .042) or a point-of-care HbA1c were added (AUC = 0.961; 95% CI [0.941; 0.980]; p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: The tested protocol, combining the FINDRISC questionnaire and a point-of-care HbA1c, showed to be feasible when carried out in a dental clinic setting and was efficient to identify subjects with undiagnosed diabetes or prediabetes.

Adjunctive effect of systemic antimicrobials in periodontitis therapy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIM: To answer the following PICOS questions: in patients with periodontitis, which is the efficacy of adjunctive systemic antimicrobials, in comparison with subgingival debridement plus a placebo, in terms of probing pocket depth (PPD) reduction, in randomized clinical trials with at least 6 months of follow-up? MATERIAL AND METHODS: A systematic search was conducted: 34 articles (28 studies) were included. Data on clinical outcome variables changes were pooled and analysed using weighted mean differences (WMDs), 95% confidence intervals (CI) and prediction intervals (PIs), in case of significant heterogeneity. RESULTS: For PPD, statistically significant benefits (p < .001) were observed in short-term studies (WMD = 0.448, 95% CI [0.324; 0.573], PI [-0.10 to 0.99]) and long-term studies (WMD = 0.485, 95% CI [0.322; 0.648], PI [-0.11 to 1.08]). Additionally, statistically significant benefits were also found for clinical attachment level, bleeding on probing, pocket closure and frequency of residual pockets. The best outcomes were observed for the combination of amoxicillin plus metronidazole, followed by metronidazole alone and azithromycin. Adverse events were more frequently reported in groups using systemic antimicrobials. CONCLUSIONS: The adjunctive use of systemic antimicrobials in periodontal therapy results in statistically significant benefits in clinical outcomes, with more frequent adverse events in test groups using systemic antimicrobials.

Adjunctive effect of locally delivered antimicrobials in periodontitis therapy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIM: To answer the following PICOS question: in adult patients with periodontitis, which is the efficacy of adjunctive locally delivered antimicrobials, in comparison with subgingival debridement alone or plus a placebo, in terms of probing pocket depth (PPD) reduction, in randomized clinical trials with at least 6 months of follow-up. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A systematic search was conducted: 59 papers, reporting 50 different studies, were included. Data on clinical outcome variables changes were pooled and analysed using weighted mean differences (WMDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CI), and prediction intervals (PI), in case of significant heterogeneity. RESULTS: Statistically significant differences were observed, in 6- to 9-month studies, for PPD (WMD = 0.365, 95% CI [0.262; 0.468], PI [-0.29; 1.01]) and clinical attachment level (CAL) (WMD = 0.263, 95% CI [0.123; 0.403], PI [-0.43; 0.96]). For long-term studies, significant differences were observed for PPD (WMD = 0.190, 95% CI [0.059; 0.321]), but not for CAL. For adverse events, no differences were observed. Results were affected by study design (split-mouth versus parallel studies) and assessment (full- or partial-mouth), as well as by the formulation tested. CONCLUSIONS: The use adjunctive locally delivered antimicrobials in periodontitis therapy results in statistically significant benefits in clinical outcomes, without relevant side effects.

A randomized clinical trial on the clinical and microbiological efficacy of a xanthan gel with chlorhexidine for subgingival use.

BACKGROUND: The main indication of the adjunctive use of local antimicrobials lies around situations in which the outcome of non-surgical mechanical treatment results in a limited number of residual pockets. The purpose of this investigation was to evaluate the clinical and microbiological effects of the subgingival application of a xanthan-based 1.5% chlorhexidine (CHX) gel (Xan-CHX), adjunctive to scaling and root planing (SRP) in localized periodontitis. METHODS: Periodontitis patients with four to ten residual (after conventional SRP) or relapsing (during supportive periodontal treatment) pockets were recruited and randomized to receive SRP plus the subgingival application of (Xan-CHX) or SRP plus a placebo gel. Supragingival plaque, bleeding on probing (BOP), probing pocket depth (PPD), and clinical attachment level were evaluated with a computerized probe at baseline, and after 1, 3, and 6 months. Subgingival samples were also collected for the microbiological analysis. Statistical analysis used ANOVA and chi-square tests. RESULTS: Overall, the clinical results were better in the test group, with significant changes in BOP (between baseline and 3 months) and with a significant increase in the proportion of shallow pockets (1-3 mm) at 6 months. These results did not result in significant intergroup differences. The microbiological impact was limited in both treatment groups. CONCLUSION: The adjunctive use of Xan-CHX may improve, although to a limited extent, the clinical outcomes (BOP and PPD), in chronic periodontitis patients with "residual" or "relapsing" pockets, but no significant differences were detected between groups. No side effects, neither clinical nor microbiological, were detected after the use of the test product. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Adjunctive use of slow-released chlorhexidine might be considered in the management of periodontal disease and gingival inflammation to reduce the need for periodontal surgery.

Local and systemic antimicrobial therapy in periodontics.

CONTEXT: This review aimed to update the current evidence on the efficacy of the adjunctive use of local and systemic antimicrobials in the treatment of periodontitis and to assess whether it might improve the clinical limitations and shortcomings of standard nonsurgical treatment in the management of periodontitis. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Relevant randomized clinical trials (RCT) with more than 3 months of follow-up, published from 2010 to 2012 for systemic antimicrobials and from 2008 to 2012 for local antimicrobials, were searched in Medline and critically analyzed. Scientific evidence evaluated in different systematic reviews and reviews presented at European and World Workshops were also included. Only adjunctive therapies were considered in the present review: articles comparing debridement alone or plus placebo, versus debridement plus systemic or local antimicrobials were included. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Adjunctive systemic antimicrobials have been evaluated both in aggressive and chronic periodontitis: in aggressive periodontitis, amoxicillin and metronidazole have been extensively studied, reporting clinical and microbiological benefits; in chronic periodontitis, different products are under scrutiny, such as azithromycin. The clinical efficacy of local antimicrobials, although extensively demonstrated, is still surrounded by a constant debate on the cost-effectiveness evaluation and on its adequate indications. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the clinical efficacy of the adjunctive use of local and systemic antimicrobials, demonstrated in RCTs and in systematic reviews, there is a lack of evidence to support well-defined clinical protocols, including products and dosages.

Quality of reporting of randomized clinical trials in implant dentistry. A systematic review on critical aspects in design, outcome assessment and clinical relevance.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this systematic review (SR) was to assess the quality of reporting randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in the field of implant dentistry, its evolution over time and the possible relations between quality items and reported outcomes. MATERIAL AND METHODS: RCTs in implant dentistry were retrieved through electronic and hand searches. Risk of bias in individual studies was assessed focusing on study design, outcome assessment and clinical relevance. Associations between quality items and year of publication of RCTs or reporting of statistically significant outcomes were tested. RESULTS: Among the 495 originally screened manuscripts published from 1989 to April 2011, 276 RCTs were assessed in this SR; 59% of them were published between 2006 and 2011. RCTs were mainly parallel (65%), with a single centre (83%) and a superiority design (88%). Trials in implant dentistry showed several methodological flaws: only 37% showed a random sequence generation at low risk of bias, 75% did not provide information on allocation concealment, only 12% performed a correct sample size calculation, the examiner was blind solely in 42% of studies where blinding was feasible. In addition, only 21% of RCTs declared operator experience and 31% reported patient-related outcomes. Many quality items improved over time. Allocation concealment at high risk of bias (p = 0.0125), no information on drop-out (p = 0.0318) and lack of CONSORT adherence (p = 0.0333) were associated with statistically significant reported outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The overall quality of reporting of RCTs in implant dentistry is poor and only partially improved in the last years. Caution is suggested when interpreting these RCTs since risk of bias was associated with higher chance of reporting of statistically significant results.

Surgical protocols for ridge preservation after tooth extraction. A systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: This systematic review aims to evaluate the scientific evidence on the efficacy in the surgical protocols designed for preserving the alveolar ridge after tooth extraction and to evaluate how these techniques affect the placement of dental implants and the final implant supported restoration. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A thorough search in MEDLINE-PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of controlled trials (CENTRAL) was conducted up to February 2011. Randomized clinical trials and prospective cohort studies with a follow-up of at least 3 months reporting changes on both the hard and soft tissues (height and/or width) of the alveolar process (mm or %) after tooth extraction were considered for inclusion. RESULTS: The screening of titles and abstracts resulted in 14 publications meeting the eligibility criteria. Data from nine of these 14 studies could be grouped in the meta-analyses. Results from the meta-analyses showed a statistically significant greater ridge reduction in bone height for control groups as compared to test groups (weighted mean differences, WMD = -1.47 mm; 95% CI [-1.982, -0.953]; P < 0.001; heterogeneity: I(2) = 13.1%; χ(2) P-value = 0.314) and a significant greater reduction in bone width for control groups compared to the test groups (WMD = -1.830 mm; 95% CI [-2.947, -0.732]; P = 0.001; heterogeneity: I(2) = 0%; χ(2) P-value = 0.837). Subgroup analysis was based on the surgical protocol used for the socket preservation (flapless/flapped, barrier membrane/no membrane, primary intention healing/no primary healing) and on the measurement method utilized to evaluate morphological changes. Meta-regression analyses demonstrated a statistically significant difference favoring the flapped subgroup in terms of bone width (meta-regression; slope = 2.26; 95% IC [1.01; 3.51]; P = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS: The potential benefit of socket preservation therapies was demonstrated resulting in significantly less vertical and horizontal contraction of the alveolar bone crest. The scientific evidence does not provide clear guidelines in regards to the type of biomaterial, or surgical procedure, although a significant positive effect of the flapped surgery was observed. There are no data available to draw conclusions on the consequences of such benefits on the long-term outcomes of implant therapy.