Detection of Porphyromonas gingivalis and Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans after Systemic Administration of Amoxicillin Plus Metronidazole as an Adjunct to Non-surgical Periodontal Therapy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Systemic ciprofloxacin treatment of multidrug-resistant Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans in severe periodontitis

An adult periodontitis patient treated with mechanical/surgical therapy experienced gingival necrosis and granulomas post-treatment. Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans, a tissue-invasive pathogen, was recovered and multidrug-resistant but susceptible to ciprofloxacin. Systemic ciprofloxacin eliminated A. actinomycetemcomitans with marked clinical improvement. Ciprofloxacin may be prescribed for A. actinomycetemcomitans periodontal infection unresponsive to the common amoxicillin-metronidazole treatment.

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.

Antimicrobial Chemotherapy for Recalcitrant Severe Human Periodontitis

This study evaluated a combined systemic and topical anti-infective periodontal treatment of 35 adults who had experienced ongoing periodontal breakdown following conventional surgical periodontics. The prescribed anti-infective therapy, based on microbiological testing, consisted of a single course of metronidazole plus ciprofloxacin (23 patients), metronidazole plus amoxicillin/clavulanic acid (10 patients), and metronidazole plus ciprofloxacin followed by metronidazole plus amoxicillin/clavulanic acid (2 patients). In addition, the study patients received 0.1% povidone-iodine subgingival disinfection during non-surgical root debridement and daily patient administered oral irrigation with 0.1% sodium hypochlorite. At 1 and 5 years post-treatment, all study patients showed gains in clinical periodontal attachment with no further attachment loss, and significant decreases in pocket probing depth, bleeding on probing, and subgingival temperature. The greatest disease resolution occurred in patients who at baseline harbored predominantly major periodontal pathogens which post-antibiotics became non-detectable and substituted by non-periodontopathic viridans streptococci. The personalized and minimally invasive anti-infective treatment regimen described here controlled periodontitis disease activity and markedly improved the clinical and microbiological status of the refractory periodontitis patients.

Periodontal microbiology and microbial etiology of periodontal diseases: Historical concepts and contemporary perspectives

This narrative review summarizes the collective knowledge on periodontal microbiology, through a historical timeline that highlights the European contribution in the global field. The etiological concepts on periodontal disease culminate to the ecological plaque hypothesis and its dysbiosis-centered interpretation. Reference is made to anerobic microbiology and to the discovery of select periodontal pathogens and their virulence factors, as well as to biofilms. The evolution of contemporary molecular methods and high-throughput platforms is highlighted in appreciating the breadth and depth of the periodontal microbiome. Finally clinical microbiology is brought into perspective with the contribution of different microbial species in periodontal diagnosis, the combination of microbial and host biomarkers for this purpose, and the use of antimicrobials in the treatment of the disease.

A questionnaire-based crossover study on the association of microbiological testing with prescription of systemic antibiotics following initial periodontal therapy

AIM

(1) To assess prescription of systemic antibiotics following initial periodontal therapy with and without the availability of microbiological information; (2) To identify factors associated with prescription of systemic antibiotics following initial periodontal therapy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Twenty-four clinicians were invited to complete a questionnaire on 20 patient records with respect to periodontal treatment planning, once with microbiological information available and once without. Randomization determined when the microbiological information was provided, and a 3-month washout period was respected between scoring sessions. Regression analysis was performed to identify factors associated with prescription of systemic antibiotics.

RESULTS

Twenty-one clinicians completed both scoring sessions. Clinicians prescribed systemic antibiotics in on average 56% (95% Confidence Interval (CI) [0.51; 0.61]) of the cases having microbiological information, and in 52% (95% CI [0.47; 0.57]) of the same cases not having that information (p = 0.094). The odds for prescribing systemic antibiotics were 3.34 (95% CI [2.06; 5.42]) times higher when the clinician had at least 3 years of experience, 2.55 (95% CI [1.40; 4.66]) times higher for patients diagnosed with periodontitis stage IV when compared to stage III, 1.08 (95% CI [1.04; 1.11]) times higher for younger patients, 2.78 times (95% CI [1.37; 5.56]) times higher for non-smokers and 2.22 (95% CI [1.27; 3.85]) times higher when less than three teeth would require extraction. No significant associations with the prescription of systemic antibiotics were found for detection of A.actinomycetemcomitans (p = 0.287), grade of periodontitis (p = 0.499) and gender of the patient (p = 0.067).

CONCLUSIONS

Based on a limited number of cases and clinicians, several patient and clinician related factors were associated with prescription of systemic antibiotics following initial periodontal therapy. However, microbiological testing was not.

Microbiological and host-derived biomarker evaluation following non-surgical periodontal therapy with short-term administration of systemic antimicrobials: secondary outcomes of an RCT

Nonsurgical periodontal therapy with adjunctive use of systemic antimicrobials (for 7–14 days) showed improved clinical, microbiological and immunological results over the mechanical protocol alone. Considering the increasing risk for antimicrobial resistance with longer antibiotic regimes, it is important to establish the optimal antibiotic protocol with a maximum antimicrobial benefit and minimum risk for adverse effects. The aim of the study was to evaluate the microbiological and inflammatory outcomes 12-months after a 3-/7-day systemic antibiotic protocol [amoxicillin (AMX) + metronidazole (MET)] adjunctive to subgingival debridement in severe periodontitis compared to mechanical treatment alone. From the initially treated 102 patients, 75 subjects (Placebo group: n = 26; 3-day AMX + MET group: n = 24; 7-day AMX + MET group: n = 25) completed the 12-month examination. Clinical parameters, eight periodontal pathogens and inflammatory markers were determined at baseline and 3-, 6-, 12-months after therapy using real-time PCR and ELISA respectively. After 6 months, several periodontopathogens were significantly more reduced in the two antibiotic groups compared to placebo (p < 0.05). After 1 year, both antibiotic protocols showed significant reductions and detection of the keystone pathogen P. gingivalis compared to placebo. Antibiotic protocols, smoking, disease severity, baseline-BOP, -CAL and -IL-1β, as well as detection of T. denticola at 12-months significantly influenced the residual number of deep sites. The present data indicate that the systemic use of both short and longer antibiotic protocols (AMX + MET) adjunctive to nonsurgical periodontal therapy lead to higher microbiological improvements compared to subgingival debridement alone. The two investigated antibiotic protocols led to comparable microbiological and inflammatory results.

Comparing the Antimicrobial In Vitro Efficacy of Amoxicillin/Metronidazole against Azithromycin-A Systematic Review

On account of its proven clinical efficacy, the combination of systemically administered amoxicillin and metronidazole is frequently adjuncted to non-operative periodontal therapy and well documented. Potential drawbacks of this regimen, e.g., side effects and problems with the compliance, led to an ongoing search for alternatives. Azithromycin, an antibiotic extensively used in general medicine, has recently found its niche in periodontal therapy as well. This systematic review aimed to analyze the in vitro antimicrobial efficacy of amoxicillin plus metronidazole versus azithromycin. For this purpose, a systematic literature search was performed, and studies published up to 29 March 2018 referenced in Medline, Embase, Cochrane, and Biosis were independently screened by two authors. An additional hand search was performed and studies focusing on the evaluation of in vitro antimicrobial efficacy of amoxicillin + metronidazole or azithromycin on bacteria from the subgingival biofilm were included. English and German language research reports were considered. From 71 identified articles, only three articles were eligible for inclusion. These studies showed heterogeneity in terms of analytical methods and strains explored. However, all studies used multispecies biofilm models for analysis of the antimicrobial activity. Unanimously, studies reported on more pronounced antimicrobial effects when applying the combination of amoxicillin + metronidazole, compared to azithromycin. Based on the few studies available, the combination of amoxicillin + metronidazole seemed to display higher antimicrobial efficacy in vitro than azithromycin.

Supportive periodontal therapy (SPT) for maintaining the dentition in adults treated for periodontitis

BACKGROUND

Periodontitis is a bacterially-induced, chronic inflammatory disease that destroys the connective tissues and bone that support teeth. Active periodontal treatment aims to reduce the inflammatory response, primarily through eradication of bacterial deposits. Following completion of treatment and arrest of inflammation, supportive periodontal therapy (SPT) is employed to reduce the probability of re-infection and progression of the disease; to maintain teeth without pain, excessive mobility or persistent infection in the long term, and to prevent related oral diseases.According to the American Academy of Periodontology, SPT should include all components of a typical dental recall examination, and importantly should also include periodontal re-evaluation and risk assessment, supragingival and subgingival removal of bacterial plaque and calculus, and re-treatment of any sites showing recurrent or persistent disease. While the first four points might be expected to form part of the routine examination appointment for periodontally healthy patients, the inclusion of thorough periodontal evaluation, risk assessment and subsequent treatment - normally including mechanical debridement of any plaque or calculus deposits - differentiates SPT from routine care.Success of SPT has been reported in a number of long-term, retrospective studies. This review aimed to assess the evidence available from randomised controlled trials (RCTs).

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of supportive periodontal therapy (SPT) in the maintenance of the dentition of adults treated for periodontitis.

SEARCH METHODS

Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 8 May 2017), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library, 2017, Issue 5), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 8 May 2017), and Embase Ovid (1980 to 8 May 2017). The US National Institutes of Health Trials Registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating SPT versus monitoring only or alternative approaches to mechanical debridement; SPT alone versus SPT with adjunctive interventions; different approaches to or providers of SPT; and different time intervals for SPT delivery.We excluded split-mouth studies where we considered there could be a risk of contamination.Participants must have completed active periodontal therapy at least six months prior to randomisation and be enrolled in an SPT programme. Trials must have had a minimum follow-up period of 12 months.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened search results to identify studies for inclusion, assessed the risk of bias in included studies and extracted study data. When possible, we calculated mean differences (MDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for continuous variables. Two review authors assessed the quality of evidence for each comparison and outcome using GRADE criteria.

MAIN RESULTS

We included four trials involving 307 participants aged 31 to 85 years, who had been previously treated for moderate to severe chronic periodontitis. Three studies compared adjuncts to mechanical debridement in SPT versus debridement only. The adjuncts were local antibiotics in two studies (one at high risk of bias and one at low risk) and photodynamic therapy in one study (at unclear risk of bias). One study at high risk of bias compared provision of SPT by a specialist versus general practitioner. We did not identify any RCTs evaluating the effects of SPT versus monitoring only, or of providing SPT at different time intervals, or that compared the effects of mechanical debridement using different approaches or technologies.No included trials measured our primary outcome 'tooth loss'; however, studies evaluated signs of inflammation and potential periodontal disease progression, including bleeding on probing (BoP), clinical attachment level (CAL) and probing pocket depth (PPD).There was no evidence of a difference between SPT delivered by a specialist versus a general practitioner for BoP or PPD at 12 months (very low-quality evidence). This study did not measure CAL or adverse events.Due to heterogeneous outcome reporting, it was not possible to combine data from the two studies comparing mechanical debridement with or without the use of adjunctive local antibiotics. Both studies found no evidence of a difference between groups at 12 months (low to very low-quality evidence). There were no adverse events in either study.The use of adjunctive photodynamic therapy did not demonstrate evidence of benefit compared to mechanical debridement only (very low-quality evidence). Adverse events were not measured.The quality of the evidence is low to very low for these comparisons. Future research is likely to change the findings, therefore the results should be interpreted with caution.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall, there is insufficient evidence to determine the superiority of different protocols or adjunctive strategies to improve tooth maintenance during SPT. No trials evaluated SPT versus monitoring only. The evidence available for the comparisons evaluated is of low to very low quality, and hampered by dissimilarities in outcome reporting. More trials using uniform definitions and outcomes are required to address the objectives of this review.

Traditionally used herbal medicines with antibacterial effect on Aggegatibacter actinomycetemcomitans: Boswellia serrata and Nigella sativa

Background:

Since bacterial strains developed resistance against commonly used antibiotics and side effects became more serious, other alternatives have been postulated. There is an answer for this issue in ancient medicine. Many plants have been proved to provide antibacterial effect. In this study, Boswellia serrata (BS) and Nigella sativa (NS) were assessed to evaluate the antibacterial effect on Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans (A.a) known as main pathogen of aggressive periodontitis.

Materials and Methods:

Broth microdilution method was used to obtain minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) of crude extract of BS and NS. Furthermore, the logarithm of colony forming units grown in fresh brain heart infusion bacterial culture was assessed. Three groups including BS+ (containing only BS), NS+ (containing only NS), and BS-NS− (control group) were defined. For each group, the experiment was repeated 12 times.

Results:

MIC of BS and NS were 512 μg/mL and 128 μg/mL, respectively. No growth was observed in our negative control group. The mean ± standard deviation of logarithm of CFU/mL for BS, NS, and control group was 4.32 ± 0.36, 3.61 ± 0.3, and 5.57 ± 0.19, respectively. ANOVA test revealed significant difference (P values < 0.0001) of these groups which was later confirmed using the post hoc test of Tukey's honest significant difference (all P < 0.0001).

Conclusions:

Both BS and NS are effective against A.a which should be taken into account as appropriate ingredient for oral hygiene products.