Gingival recession after scaling and root planing with or without systemic metronidazole and amoxicillin: a re-review.
Clinical attachment level
Debridement
Periodontal healing
Scaling and root planing
Systemic antibiotics
Journal
Clinical oral investigations
ISSN: 1436-3771
Titre abrégé: Clin Oral Investig
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 9707115
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Mar 2020
Mar 2020
Historique:
received:
06
08
2019
accepted:
03
01
2020
pubmed:
16
1
2020
medline:
13
3
2020
entrez:
16
1
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Gingival recessions inevitably occur during healing after scaling and root planing, but synoptic data on this topic is still lacking. This review compared the recession formation with and without the administration of systemic antibiotics. To evaluate the formation of recession with and without the administration of antibiotics during the healing after scaling and root planing. This study re-analyzed publications that reported clinical attachment levels (CAL) and probing pocket depths (PD) up to January 2019, including the pivotal review by Zandbergen and co-workers (2013). Whereas these studies traditionally focused on PD and CAL, the present analysis compared recession formation (ΔREC) after adjunctive systemic administration of amoxicillin (amx) and metronidazole (met) during scaling and root planing (SRP) and SRP alone. The mean increase in ΔREC, if not reported, was calculated from CAL and PD values and statistically analyzed. Recession formation was compared after 3 and 6 months after therapy. Results were separately reported for chronic periodontitis (CP) as well as aggressive periodontitis (AP) cases. Recessions increased consistently between baseline and follow-up. In the AP group, median ΔREC was 0.20 mm after 3 months, irrespective of whether antibiotics were administered or not. After 6 months, median ΔREC increased to 0.35 mm after AB and remained stable at 0.20 mm with SRP alone. In the CP group, after 3 months with and without antibiotics, median ΔREC accounted for 0.30 mm and 0.14 mm, respectively. After 6 months, median ΔREC accounted for 0.28 mm (with AB) and 0.20 mm (without AB). The quantitative assessment by meta-analyses also yielded small values (≤ 0.25 mm) for the estimated differences in recession formation between AB and noAB; however, none of them reached statistical significance. Although a slight tendency towards higher recession formation after SRP in combination with AB could be observed in many studies, quantitative meta-analyses showed no clinically relevant difference in recession formation due to the administration of AB. In general, the description and discussion of recessions in the literature seems not to be a major focus so far. Since the preservation of gingival tissues is important by preventive and therapeutic means, e.g., when avoiding postoperative root sensitivity or performing regenerative surgery, these aspects should not be neglected. We thus suggest to report REC measurements along with PD and CAL values for more direct recession formation (ΔREC) assessments in the future.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Gingival recessions inevitably occur during healing after scaling and root planing, but synoptic data on this topic is still lacking. This review compared the recession formation with and without the administration of systemic antibiotics.
OBJECTIVES
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the formation of recession with and without the administration of antibiotics during the healing after scaling and root planing.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
METHODS
This study re-analyzed publications that reported clinical attachment levels (CAL) and probing pocket depths (PD) up to January 2019, including the pivotal review by Zandbergen and co-workers (2013). Whereas these studies traditionally focused on PD and CAL, the present analysis compared recession formation (ΔREC) after adjunctive systemic administration of amoxicillin (amx) and metronidazole (met) during scaling and root planing (SRP) and SRP alone. The mean increase in ΔREC, if not reported, was calculated from CAL and PD values and statistically analyzed. Recession formation was compared after 3 and 6 months after therapy. Results were separately reported for chronic periodontitis (CP) as well as aggressive periodontitis (AP) cases.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Recessions increased consistently between baseline and follow-up. In the AP group, median ΔREC was 0.20 mm after 3 months, irrespective of whether antibiotics were administered or not. After 6 months, median ΔREC increased to 0.35 mm after AB and remained stable at 0.20 mm with SRP alone. In the CP group, after 3 months with and without antibiotics, median ΔREC accounted for 0.30 mm and 0.14 mm, respectively. After 6 months, median ΔREC accounted for 0.28 mm (with AB) and 0.20 mm (without AB). The quantitative assessment by meta-analyses also yielded small values (≤ 0.25 mm) for the estimated differences in recession formation between AB and noAB; however, none of them reached statistical significance.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Although a slight tendency towards higher recession formation after SRP in combination with AB could be observed in many studies, quantitative meta-analyses showed no clinically relevant difference in recession formation due to the administration of AB. In general, the description and discussion of recessions in the literature seems not to be a major focus so far.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE
CONCLUSIONS
Since the preservation of gingival tissues is important by preventive and therapeutic means, e.g., when avoiding postoperative root sensitivity or performing regenerative surgery, these aspects should not be neglected. We thus suggest to report REC measurements along with PD and CAL values for more direct recession formation (ΔREC) assessments in the future.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31938962
doi: 10.1007/s00784-020-03198-4
pii: 10.1007/s00784-020-03198-4
doi:
Substances chimiques
Anti-Bacterial Agents
0
Metronidazole
140QMO216E
Amoxicillin
804826J2HU
Types de publication
Journal Article
Review
Langues
eng
Pagination
1091-1100Références
J Clin Periodontol. 2016 Sep;43(9):767-77
pubmed: 27027501
J Clin Periodontol. 2011 Sep;38(9):828-37
pubmed: 21762197
J Clin Periodontol. 2017 Aug;44(8):822-832
pubmed: 28303587
J Clin Periodontol. 2011 Apr;38(4):355-64
pubmed: 21303403
J Clin Periodontol. 2014 Sep;41(9):837-45
pubmed: 24888705
J Clin Periodontol. 2012 Mar;39(3):295-302
pubmed: 22126282
Quintessence Int. 2016 Apr;47(4):281-92
pubmed: 26345106
J Clin Periodontol. 1985 Mar;12(3):190-200
pubmed: 3856574
Aust Dent J. 2013 Dec;58(4):442-7
pubmed: 24320900
Periodontol 2000. 2018 Feb;76(1):85-96
pubmed: 29193304
J Clin Periodontol. 1984 Jan;11(1):63-76
pubmed: 6363463
J Periodontol. 2011 Aug;82(8):1121-30
pubmed: 21235333
J Periodontol. 2013 Mar;84(3):332-51
pubmed: 22612369
BMC Oral Health. 2014 Dec 22;14:159
pubmed: 25529408
Int J Dent Hyg. 2017 May;15(2):135-141
pubmed: 26799625
BMJ. 2015 Jan 02;350:g7647
pubmed: 25555855
J Clin Periodontol. 2012 Dec;39(12):1149-58
pubmed: 23016867
J Clin Periodontol. 1990 Feb;17(2):108-14
pubmed: 2406292
J Periodontol. 1996 Feb;67(2):93-102
pubmed: 8667142
J Clin Periodontol. 1984 Feb;11(2):114-24
pubmed: 6583210
J Clin Periodontol. 2008 Oct;35(10):885-96
pubmed: 18727657
J Clin Periodontol. 2014 Sep;41(9):890-9
pubmed: 24930639
J Clin Periodontol. 2005 Mar;32(3):225-30
pubmed: 15766363
Ann Periodontol. 1996 Nov;1(1):443-90
pubmed: 9118268
J Clin Periodontol. 2006 Apr;33(4):254-64
pubmed: 16553634
Photodiagnosis Photodyn Ther. 2018 Jun;22:217-222
pubmed: 29653193
Periodontol 2000. 2004;36:121-45
pubmed: 15330946
J Clin Periodontol. 2010 Apr;37(4):353-65
pubmed: 20447259
J Clin Periodontol. 2012 Mar;39(3):284-94
pubmed: 22220822