Adjunctive antimicrobial photodynamic therapy for treating periodontal and peri-implant diseases
Pia-Merete Jervøe-Storm,Jennifer Bunke,Helen V Worthington,Ian Needleman,Raluca Cosgarea,Laura MacDonald,Tanya Walsh,Sharon R Lewis,Søren Jepsen
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.cd011778.pub2
IF: 8.4
2024-07-13
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews
Abstract:Periodontitis and peri‐implant diseases are chronic inflammatory conditions occurring in the mouth. Left untreated, periodontitis progressively destroys the tooth‐supporting apparatus. Peri‐implant diseases occur in tissues around dental implants and are characterised by inflammation in the peri‐implant mucosa and subsequent progressive loss of supporting bone. Treatment aims to clean the pockets around teeth or dental implants and prevent damage to surrounding soft tissue and bone, including improvement of oral hygiene, risk factor control (e.g. encouraging cessation of smoking) and surgical interventions. The key aspect of standard non‐surgical treatment is the removal of the subgingival biofilm using subgingival instrumentation (SI) (also called scaling and root planing). Antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) can be used an adjunctive treatment to SI. It uses light energy to kill micro‐organisms that have been treated with a light‐absorbing photosensitising agent immediately prior to aPDT. To assess the effects of SI with adjunctive aPDT versus SI alone or with placebo aPDT for periodontitis and peri‐implant diseases in adults. We searched the Cochrane Oral Health Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, two other databases and two trials registers up to 14 February 2024. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) (both parallel‐group and split‐mouth design) in participants with a clinical diagnosis of periodontitis, peri‐implantitis or peri‐implant disease. We compared the adjunctive use of antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT), in which aPDT was given after subgingival or submucosal instrumentation (SI), versus SI alone or a combination of SI and a placebo aPDT given during the active or supportive phase of therapy. We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures, and we used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. We prioritised six outcomes and the measure of change from baseline to six months after treatment: probing pocket depth (PPD), bleeding on probing (BOP), clinical attachment level (CAL), gingival recession (REC), pocket closure and adverse effects related to aPDT. We were also interested in change in bone level (for participants with peri‐implantitis), and participant satisfaction and quality of life. We included 50 RCTs with 1407 participants. Most studies used a split‐mouth study design; only 18 studies used a parallel‐group design. Studies were small, ranging from 10 participants to 88. Adjunctive aPDT was given in a single session in 39 studies, in multiple sessions (between two and four sessions) in 11 studies, and one study included both single and multiple sessions. SI was given using hand or power‐driven instrumentation (or both), and was carried out prior to adjunctive aPDT. Five studies used placebo aPDT in the control group and we combined these in meta‐analyses with studies in which SI alone was used. All studies included high or unclear risks of bias, such as selection bias or performance bias of personnel (when SI was carried out by an operator aware of group allocation). We downgraded the certainty of all the evidence owing to these risks of bias, as well as for unexplained statistical inconsistency in the pooled effect estimates or for imprecision when evidence was derived from very few participants and confidence intervals (CI) indicated possible benefit to both intervention and control groups. Adjunctive aPDT versus SI alone during active treatment of periodontitis (44 studies) We are very uncertain whether adjunctive aPDT during active treatment of periodontitis leads to improvement in any clinical outcomes at six months when compared to SI alone: PPD (mean difference (MD) 0.52 mm, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.74; 15 studies, 452 participants), BOP (MD 5.72%, 95% CI 1.62 to 9.81; 5 studies, 171 studies), CAL (MD 0.44 mm, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.64; 13 studies, 414 participants) and REC (MD 0.00, 95% CI ‐0.16 to 0.16; 4 studies, 95 participants); very low‐certainty evidence. Any apparent differences between adjunctive aPDT and SI alone were not judged to be clinically important. Twenty‐four studies (639 participants) observed no adverse effects related to aPDT (moderate‐certainty evidence). No studies reported pocket closure at six months, participant satisfaction or quality of life. Adjunctive aPDT versus SI alone during supportive treatment of periodontitis (six studies) We were very uncertain whether adjunctive aPDT during active treatment of periodontitis leads to improvement in any clinical outcomes at six months when compared to SI alone: PPD (MD ‐0.04 mm, 95% CI ‐0.19 to 0.10; 3 studies, 125 participants), BOP (MD 4.98%, 95% CI ‐2.51 to 12.46; 3 studies, 127 participants), CAL (MD 0.07 mm, 95% CI ‐0.26 to 0.40; 2 studies, 85 participants) and REC (MD ‐0.20 mm, 95% CI ‐0.48 to 0.08; 1 study, 24 participants); very low‐certainty evidence. These findings were all imprecise and included no -Abstract Truncated-
medicine, general & internal