Twenty Years of Full-Mouth Disinfection: The Past, the Present and the Future

Full-mouth treatment modalities (within 24 hours) for periodontitis in adults

BACKGROUND

Periodontitis is a highly prevalent, chronic inflammation that causes damage to the soft tissues and bones supporting the teeth. Conventional treatment is quadrant scaling and root planing (the second step of periodontal therapy), which comprises scaling and root planing of teeth in one quadrant of the mouth at a time, with the four different sessions separated by at least one week. Alternative protocols for anti-infective periodontal therapy have been introduced to help enhance treatment outcomes: full-mouth scaling (subgingival instrumentation of all quadrants within 24 hours), or full-mouth disinfection (subgingival instrumentation of all quadrants in 24 hours plus adjunctive antiseptic). We use the older term 'scaling and root planing' (SRP) interchangeably with the newer term 'subgingival instrumentation' in this iteration of the review, which updates one originally published in 2008 and first updated in 2015.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the clinical effects of full-mouth scaling or full-mouth disinfection (within 24 hours) for the treatment of periodontitis compared to conventional quadrant subgingival instrumentation (over a series of visits at least one week apart) and to evaluate whether there was a difference in clinical effects between full-mouth disinfection and full-mouth scaling.

SEARCH METHODS

An information specialist searched five databases up to 17 June 2021 and used additional search methods to identify published, unpublished and ongoing studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) lasting at least three months that evaluated full-mouth scaling and root planing within 24 hours, with or without adjunctive use of an antiseptic, compared to conventional quadrant SRP (control). Participants had a clinical diagnosis of (chronic) periodontitis according to the International Classification of Periodontal Diseases from 1999. A new periodontitis classification was launched in 2018; however, we used the 1999 classification for inclusion or exclusion of studies, as most studies used it. We excluded studies of people with systemic disorders, taking antibiotics or with the older diagnosis of 'aggressive periodontitis'.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Several review authors independently conducted data extraction and risk of bias assessment (based on randomisation method, allocation concealment, examiner blinding and completeness of follow-up). Our primary outcomes were tooth loss and change in probing pocket depth (PPD); secondary outcomes were change in probing attachment (i.e. clinical attachment level (CAL)), bleeding on probing (BOP), adverse events and pocket closure (the number/proportion of sites with PPD of 4 mm or less after treatment). We followed Cochrane's methodological guidelines for data extraction and analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 20 RCTs, with 944 participants, in this updated review. No studies assessed the primary outcome tooth loss. Thirteen trials compared full-mouth scaling and root planing within 24 hours without the use of antiseptic (FMS) versus control, 13 trials compared full-mouth scaling and root planing within 24 hours with adjunctive use of an antiseptic (FMD) versus control, and six trials compared FMS with FMD. Of the 13 trials comparing FMS versus control, we assessed three at high risk of bias, six at low risk of bias and four at unclear risk of bias. We assessed our certainty about the evidence as low or very low for the outcomes in this comparison. There was no evidence for a benefit for FMS over control for change in PPD, gain in CAL or reduction in BOP at six to eight months (PPD: mean difference (MD) 0.03 mm, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.14 to 0.20; 5 trials, 148 participants; CAL: MD 0.10 mm, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.26; 5 trials, 148 participants; BOP: MD 2.64%, 95% CI -8.81 to 14.09; 3 trials, 80 participants). There was evidence of heterogeneity for BOP (I² = 50%), but none for PPD and CAL. Of the 13 trials comparing FMD versus control, we judged four at high risk of bias, one at low risk of bias and eight at unclear risk of bias. At six to eight months, there was no evidence for a benefit for FMD over control for change in PPD or CAL (PPD: MD 0.11 mm, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.27; 6 trials, 224 participants; low-certainty evidence; CAL: 0.07 mm, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.24; 6 trials, 224 participants; low-certainty evidence). The analyses found no evidence of a benefit for FMD over control for BOP (very low-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of heterogeneity for PPD or CAL, but considerable evidence of heterogeneity for BOP, attributed to one study. There were no consistent differences in these outcomes between intervention and control (low- to very low-certainty evidence). Of the six trials comparing FMS and FMD, we judged two trials at high risk of bias, one at low risk of bias and three as unclear. At six to eight months, there was no evidence of a benefit of FMD over FMS for change in PPD or gain in CAL (PPD: MD -0.11 mm, 95% CI -0.30 to 0.07; P = 0.22; 4 trials, 112 participants; low-certainty evidence; CAL: MD -0.05 mm, 95% CI -0.23 to -0.13; P = 0.58; 4 trials, 112 participants; low-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of a difference between FMS and FMD for BOP at any time point (P = 0.98; 2 trials, 22 participants; low- to very low-certainty evidence). There was evidence of heterogeneity for BOP (I² = 52%), but not for PPD or CAL. Thirteen studies predefined adverse events as an outcome; three reported an event after FMD or FMS. The most important harm identified was an increase in body temperature. We assessed the certainty of the evidence for most comparisons and outcomes as low because of design limitations leading to risk of bias, and the small number of trials and participants, leading to imprecision in the effect estimates.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The inclusion of nine new RCTs in this updated review has not changed the conclusions of the previous version of the review. There is still no clear evidence that FMS or FMD approaches provide additional clinical benefit compared to conventional mechanical treatment for adult periodontitis. In practice, the decision to select one approach to non-surgical periodontal therapy over another should include patient preference and the convenience of the treatment schedule.

Nonsurgical periodontal therapy decreases the severity of rheumatoid arthritis and the plasmatic and salivary levels of RANKL and Survivin: a short-term clinical study

AIM

To investigate the influence of nonsurgical periodontal treatment (NSPT) on clinical periodontal status, rheumatoid arthritis (RA) activity, and plasmatic and salivary levels of biomarkers through a controlled clinical trial on individuals with RA and periodontitis (PE).

METHODS

Sixty-six individuals from a convenience sample were considered eligible and consecutively allocated in 3 groups: (1) individuals without PE and RA (-PE-RA, n = 19); (2) individuals without PE and with RA (-PE+RA, n = 23), and (3) individuals with PE and RA (+PE+RA, n = 24). Full-mouth periodontal clinical examinations, Disease Activity Score (DAS-28) evaluations, and analysis in plasma and saliva of RANKL, OPG, RANKL/OPG, and Survivin were performed at baseline (T1) and 45 days after NSPT (T2).

RESULTS

NSPT in the +PE+RA group was very effective to improve periodontal condition. At T2, significant reductions in DAS-28 were observed in +PE+RA (p = 0.011). Significantly higher levels of Survivin and RANKL were observed in saliva and plasma from RA individuals (with and without PE) compared to controls. Additionally, Survivin e RANKL demonstrated positive correlations with DAS-28 and an expressively significant reduction in +PE+RA at T2 (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

NSPT was effective on improving both the periodontal and the RA clinical status and reducing the concentration of Survivin and RANKL in saliva and plasma.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

Nonsurgical periodontal treatment was effective on reducing the concentration of Survivin and RANKL and on improving both the periodontal and the RA clinical status of affected individuals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Brazilian Registry of Clinical Trials (ReBEC) protocol #RBR-8g2bc8 ( http://www.ensaiosclinicos.gov.br/rg/RBR-8g2bc8/ ).

Clinical and microbiological effects of non-surgical periodontal treatment in individuals with rheumatoid arthritis: a controlled clinical trial

The effect of periodontal treatment on clinical, microbiological and serological parameters of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) are scarce and controversial. The aim of this study was to investigate the influence of non-surgical periodontal treatment on clinical periodontal status, subgingival bacterial levels of Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans, Porphyromonas gingivalis, Tannerella forsythia, Treponema denticola and RA activity through a controlled clinical trial on individuals with RA and periodontitis (PE). From a convenience sample, 107 individuals were considered eligible and consecutively allocated in four groups: (1) individuals without PE and RA (- PE-RA, n = 30); (2) individuals without PE and with RA (- PE + RA, n = 23); (3) individuals with PE and RA (+ PE + RA, n = 24); and (4) individuals with PE and without RA (+ PE-RA, n = 30). Full-mouth periodontal clinical examinations, microbiological analysis and Disease Activity Score (DAS-28) evaluations were performed at baseline (T1) and 45 days after non-surgical periodontal treatment (T2). At T1, individuals + PE + RA showed greater severity of PE than + PE-RA individuals. At T2, significant reductions were observed in all periodontal clinical parameters in both groups (p < 0.001) with a significant reduction in DAS-28 in + PE + RA (p = 0.011). Individuals + PE-RA and + PE-RA showed significant reductions for all bacteria (p < 0.001). Additionally, P. gingivalis demonstrated an expressively significant reduction in + PE + RA (p < 0.001). Non-surgical periodontal treatment was effective on improving the clinical periodontal condition, improving the RA clinical status and reducing the presence of periodontal pathogens. Brazilian Registry of Clinical Trials (ReBEC) protocol #RBR-8g2bc8 ( https://www.ensaiosclinicos.gov.br/rg/RBR-8g2bc8/ ).

Adjunctive subgingival application of Chlorhexidine gel in nonsurgical periodontal treatment for chronic periodontitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

Subgingival applications of chlorhexidine (CHX) gel are commonly used as an adjunct in nonsurgical periodontal treatment (NSPT) for chronic periodontitis (CP). However, there is lack of systematic review and meta-analysis justifying the effects of adjunctive CHX gel on clinical outcomes. The objective of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy of adjunctive subgingival administration of CHX gel in NSPT compared to NSPT alone for CP.

Methods

An electronic search of four databases and a manual search of four journals were conducted up to August 2019. Only randomized controlled trials reporting on the clinical outcomes of subgingival use of CHX gel adjunct to scaling and root planing (SRP), as compared to SRP alone or with placebo, for at least 3 months were included. Primary outcomes were probing pocket depth (PPD) reduction and clinical attachment level (CAL) gain at 3 and 6 months, when data on at least three studies were obtained.

Results

Seventeen studies were included for qualitative analysis and seven studies for quantitative analysis (four studies for the application of CHX gel adjunct to SRP at selected sites with at least pocket depth ≥ 4 mm and three studies for comparison of full-mouth disinfection (FMD) with subgingival use of CHX gel and full-mouth scaling and root planing (FMSRP). For subgroups, the clinical outcomes between adjunctive use of Xanthan-based CHX gel (XAN-CHX gel) and CHX gel were analyzed. Results indicated a significant improvement of PPD reduction following local adjunctive administration of XAN-CHX gel for SRP at selected sites (MD: 0.15 mm). However, no difference was found in CAL gain. Moreover, no significant difference was observed in PPD and CAL at both 3 and 6 months post-treatment between FMD and FMSRP.

Conclusion

Adjunctive subgingival administration of XAN-CHX gel at individual selected sites in NSPT appears to provide slight benefits in PPD reduction compared to NSPT alone for CP. Due to the lack of high-quality studies, further studies with larger sample sizes and strict standards are needed to confirm the conclusions.