Preliminary evaluation of the use of methylene blue, a redox dye, in the treatment of chronic periodontitis

Effect of long-term methylene blue treatment on the composition of mouse gut microbiome and its relationship with the cognitive abilities of mice

In recent years, methylene blue (MB) has attracted considerable interest as a potential drug for the treatment of methemoglobinemia and neurodegenerative diseases. MB is active against microorganisms from various taxonomic groups. However, no studies have yet been conducted on the effect of MB on the intestinal microbiome of model animals. The aim of this work was to study the effect of different concentrations of MB on the mouse gut microbiome and its relationship with the cognitive abilities of mice. We showed that a low MB concentration (15 mg/kg/day) did not cause significant changes in the microbiome composition. The Bacteroidetes/Firmicutes ratio decreased relative to the control on the 2nd and 3rd weeks. A slight decrease in the levels Actinobacteria was detected on the 3rd week of the experiment. Changes in the content of Delta, Gamma, and Epsilonproteobacteria have been also observed. We did not find significant alterations in the composition of intestinal microbiome, which could be an indication of the development of dysbiosis or other gut dysfunction. At the same time, a high concentration of MB (50 mg/kg/day) led to pronounced changes, primarily an increase in the levels of Delta, Gamma and Epsilonproteobacteria. Over 4 weeks of therapy, the treatment with high MB concentration has led to an increase in the median content of Proteobacteria to 7.49% vs. 1.61% in the control group. Finally, we found that MB at a concentration of 15 mg/kg/day improved the cognitive abilities of mice, while negative correlation between the content of Deferribacteres and cognitive parameters was revealed. Our data expand the understanding of the relationship between MB, cognitive abilities, and gut microbiome in respect to the antibacterial properties of MB.

Local Anti-Infective Therapy: Mechanical and Physical Approaches. A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Although mechanical non-surgical therapy (scaling and root planing) is the most common means of initial treatment of periodontal diseases, the relative clinical efficacy of various methods, including manual versus machine-driven, with or without adjunctive agents, has not been determined.

RATIONALE

This systematic review analyzes the literature in an effort to identify the most effective therapies, based on both clinical and patient-centered outcomes.

FOCUSED QUESTION

In patients with periodontitis, what is the effect of mechanically-driven instrumentation (e.g., power-driven) and/or subgingival irrigation with and without manual instrumentation compared to manual instrumentation alone?

SEARCH PROTOCOL

Two investigators examined MEDLINE and the Cochrane Oral Health Group specialized registry for clinical trials published in English. Hand searches were performed of the International Journal of Periodontics & Restorative Dentistry, Journal of Clinical Periodontology, Journal of Periodontology, and Journal of Periodontal Research. Searches were performed for articles published through April 2002. Editors of these journals were asked to provide information on articles currently under review. In addition, an electronic discussion group on periodontal diseases and treatment was contacted, as were manufacturers of manual and mechanical instruments and of adjunctive agents.

SELECTION CRITERIA

INCLUSION CRITERIA

Only randomized clinical trials, cohort studies, or case-control studies at least 3 months long were included. All studies had to compare manual instrumentation (MI; scaling and root planing [SRP]) alone with some other form of non-surgical therapy. These included MI versus mechanically-driven instruments (MDI) alone; MI versus MI plus MDI; MI versus MDI plus an agent (e.g., chlorhexidine); and MI versus subgingival irrigation (SGI) delivered in conjunction with MI or MDI.

EXCLUSION CRITERIA

Studies not meeting the inclusion criteria or those treating periodontal diseases as a manifestation or complication of some other disease or disorder were not included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Probing depth, clinical attachment level, bleeding on probing, and gingival recession were the primary outcomes. Because of the heterogeneity of the patient populations, treatments, and outcome measures, meta-analysis was not appropriate. Only in-study data were compared. Four of the studies required extrapolating data from figures and graphs, resulting in questionable accuracy.

MAIN RESULTS

1. Nine studies, representing a study population of 129, were included in the review. 2. Five studies compared MI with MDI alone. The other 4 compared MI alone to MI plus SGI or subgingival tissue treatment. 3. There was comparable efficacy between MI and MDI when treating single-rooted teeth. 4. The use of SGI or subgingival tissue treatment as an adjunct to MI provided no additional benefit compared to MI alone. 5. Findings reported in the review must be interpreted with considerable caution, as lack of study heterogeneity made meta-analysis unfeasible and the need to extrapolate outcomes values from graphs and figures may have resulted in some inaccuracy.

REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS

1. Manual and mechanically-driven instrumentation appears comparable in affecting improved clinical outcomes. 2. Instrumentation time for MI and MDI were similar, except for 1 study in which MDI was significantly shorter. 3. Adjunctive SGI plus MI and subgingival tissue treatment result in similar clinical outcomes when compared to MI alone. 4. If study data are to be effectively and analytically combined to facilitate meaningful comparisons of treatment outcomes, detailed and standardized study designs must be developed and used consistently in clinical trials.