Hanes Philip J, Purvis James P
Department of Periodontics, Medical College of Georgia, School of Dentistry, Augusta, GA 30912-1220, USA.
Ann Periodontol. 2003 Dec;8(1):79-98. doi: 10.1902/annals.2003.8.1.79.
It is well recognized that periodontal diseases are bacterial in nature. An essential component of therapy is to eliminate or control these pathogens. This has been traditionally accomplished through mechanical means (scaling and root planing [SRP]), which is time-consuming, difficult, and sometimes ineffective. Over the past 20 years, locally delivered, anti-infective pharmacological agents, most recently employing sustained-release vehicles, have been introduced to achieve this goal.
This systematic review evaluates literature-based evidence in an effort to determine the efficacy of currently available anti-infective agents, with and without concurrent SRP, in controlling chronic periodontitis.
In patients with chronic periodontitis, what is the effect of local controlled-release anti-infective drug therapy with or without SRP compared to SRP alone on changes in clinical, patient-centered, and adverse outcomes?
MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Trials Register, and Web of Science were searched. Hand searches were performed of the Journal of Clinical Periodontology, Journal of Periodontology, and Journal of Periodontal Research. Searches were performed for articles published through April 2002. In addition, investigators contacted editors of the above-mentioned journals and companies sponsoring research on these agents for related unpublished data and studies in progress.
Studies included randomized controlled clinical trials (RCT), and case-controlled and cohort studies at least 3 months long. Therapeutic interventions had to include 1) SRP alone; 2) local anti-infective drug therapy and SRP; or 3) local anti-infective drug therapy alone. Included studies had to report patient-based mean values and measures of variation for probing depth (PD) and/or clinical attachment levels (CAL) for both test and control groups.
Studies were excluded if they: 1) included data from a previously published article; 2) included daily rinsing with chlorhexidine (CHX); or 3) had unclear descriptions of randomization procedures, examiner masking, or concomitant therapies.
For the meta-analysis, PD and CAL were expressed as summary mean effects with 95% confidence intervals (CI) for the effect, and analyzed using a standardized difference between SRP alone and experimental agent groups. The results were assessed with both fixed-effects and random-effects models. Studies were ranked according to the York system.
REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS: 1. In some populations, anti-infective agents in a sustained-release vehicle alone can reduce PD and bleeding on probing (BOP) equivalent to that achieved by SRP alone. 2. No evidence was found for an adjunctive effect on reduction of PD and BOP of therapist-delivered CHX irrigation during SRP compared to SRP alone. 3. Additional RCTs are needed which evaluate the effectiveness of these therapies in all forms of periodontitis. 4. The study protocol for future RCTs should include appropriate statistical analyses and complete data sets to facilitate future evidence-based reviews. 5. Alternative surrogate parameters to PD and CAL need to be identified and validated such as microbial, inflammatory, or tissue-destructive markers that could be used in conjunction with clinical parameters to help determine the patient's response to emerging technologies that target the infectious and/or inflammatory aspects of periodontitis. 6. Future Phase IV clinical trials should be designed that evaluate local anti-infective therapies in conjunction with SRP in a manner consistent with current standards of care and evaluate cost-effectiveness. 7. The use of local anti-infective agents in at-risk patient populations and for the treatment of at-risk disease sites needs to be validated in randomized controlled clinical trials. 8. Several local anti-infective agents combined with SRP appear to provide additional benefits in PD reduction and CAL gain compared to SRP alone. The decision to use local anti-infective adjunctive therapy remains a matter of individual clinical judgment, the phase of treatment, and the patient's status and preferences.
人们普遍认识到牙周疾病本质上是细菌性疾病。治疗的一个关键组成部分是消除或控制这些病原体。传统上这是通过机械手段(龈上洁治和根面平整[SRP])来完成的,但这种方法耗时、困难,有时还无效。在过去20年里,已引入局部递送的抗感染药物,最近采用缓释载体来实现这一目标。
本系统评价评估基于文献的证据,以确定目前可用的抗感染药物在联合或不联合SRP的情况下控制慢性牙周炎的疗效。
在慢性牙周炎患者中,与单纯SRP相比,局部控释抗感染药物治疗联合或不联合SRP对临床、以患者为中心的结局及不良结局的变化有何影响?
检索了MEDLINE、Cochrane中央试验注册库和科学引文索引。对《临床牙周病学杂志》《牙周病学杂志》和《牙周病研究杂志》进行了手工检索。检索截至2002年4月发表的文章。此外,研究人员联系了上述期刊的编辑以及资助这些药物研究的公司,以获取相关未发表数据和正在进行的研究。
研究包括随机对照临床试验(RCT)、病例对照研究和队列研究,研究时长至少3个月。治疗干预必须包括:1)单纯SRP;2)局部抗感染药物治疗联合SRP;或3)单纯局部抗感染药物治疗。纳入的研究必须报告试验组和对照组基于患者的探诊深度(PD)和/或临床附着水平(CAL)的平均值及变异度量。
如果研究:1)包含先前发表文章的数据;2)包括每日使用洗必泰(CHX)漱口;或3)对随机化程序、检查者盲法或伴随治疗的描述不清楚,则将其排除。
对于荟萃分析,PD和CAL表示为效应的汇总平均效应及95%置信区间(CI),并使用单纯SRP组与试验药物组之间的标准化差异进行分析。结果采用固定效应模型和随机效应模型进行评估。研究根据约克系统进行排名。