World Rural Health Conference
Home Print this page Email this page Small font size Default font size Increase font size
Users Online: 1790
Home About us Editorial board Search Ahead of print Current issue Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 


 
 Table of Contents 
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2019  |  Volume : 8  |  Issue : 7  |  Page : 2347-2353  

Comparative evaluation of adjunctive antibiotics given post periodontal flap surgery


1 Department of Periodontology, Darshan Dental College and Hospital, Udaipur, Rajasthan, India
2 Department of Prosthodontics and Crown and Bridge, Darshan Dental College and Hospital, Udaipur, Rajasthan, India
3 Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Geetanjali Dental College and Research Institute, Udaipur, Rajasthan, India

Date of Submission17-Apr-2019
Date of Decision19-Apr-2019
Date of Acceptance24-May-2019
Date of Web Publication31-Jul-2019

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Kratika Baldua Porwal
B-116, Mangalam Orchid, New Navratana Complex, Bhuwana, Udaipur, Rajasthan
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_313_19

Rights and Permissions
  Abstract 


Background: Antibiotics are known to improve clinical parameters in patients with periodontitis, so they should be capable of enhancing the surgical treatment outcome by improving clinical parameters when given adjunctively following periodontal flap surgery. Methods: Thirty subjects with moderate to severe periodontitis were randomly divided into three groups: Group I: 10 patients without antibiotic prescription after flap surgery, Group II: 10 patients prescribed with metronidazole 400 mg t.i.d. for 14 days, and Group III: 10 patients prescribed with doxycycline 200 mg o.d. as booster dose followed by successive doses of 100 mg o.d. for 21 days. Plaque index (PI), gingival index (GI), pocket probing depth (PPD), and clinical attachment level (CAL) were recorded at baseline, 2 weeks, and 2 months. The mean values and standard deviation values for each parameter were calculated using analysis of variance. Group comparison was done using paired t- and unpaired t-tests. Results: Reduction in PI, GI, PPD, and CAL after 2 weeks and 3 months from baseline in all the three groups was seen; intergroup comparison showed more reduction in PPD and GI and more gain in CAL in Groups II and III after 3 months when compared with Group I. No statistical difference was seen between Groups II and III. Conclusion: Within the limits of this study, it can be concluded that antibiotic administration as an adjunct to conventional flap surgery helps in improving clinical parameters.

Keywords: Antibacterial agents, chronic periodontitis, oral surgical procedures, periodontal attachment loss


How to cite this article:
Porwal KB, Porwal A, Ravikiran N, Ahmed S, Singh V, Tanwar AS. Comparative evaluation of adjunctive antibiotics given post periodontal flap surgery. J Family Med Prim Care 2019;8:2347-53

How to cite this URL:
Porwal KB, Porwal A, Ravikiran N, Ahmed S, Singh V, Tanwar AS. Comparative evaluation of adjunctive antibiotics given post periodontal flap surgery. J Family Med Prim Care [serial online] 2019 [cited 2019 Aug 25];8:2347-53. Available from: http://www.jfmpc.com/text.asp?2019/8/7/2347/263765




  Introduction Top


The goal of periodontal therapy is to alter or eliminate microbes and contributing risk factors.[1] Mechanical debridement may fail to remove pathogens because of their location in subepithelial gingival tissue, crevicular epithelial cells, altered cementum and radicular dentinal tubuli, subgingival hard deposits, furcations, and so on complicating adequate instrumentation. Moreover, pathogens frequently colonize and translocate from nonperiodontal sites to periodontal crevices.[2]

Many studies showed that administration of metronidazole, metronidazole + amoxicillin, and doxycycline improves clinical parameters,[3],[4] reduces pocket depths,[5],[6] and gains in attachment in patients with periodontitis.[5],[6],[7]

Hence, this study is intended to evaluate and compare efficacy of different antibiotics in improving treatment outcomes following flap surgery.


  Materials and Methods Top


A total of 30 subjects of both sexes with chronic periodontitis requiring periodontal flap surgery were selected randomly from the outpatient Department of Periodontology. The ethical clearance for the study was provided by an institutionally approved ethical committee.

Inclusion criteria: Systemically healthy patients between 25 and 55 years of age with moderate chronic periodontitis with plaque index (PI) score and gingival index (GI) score ≤2, persistent probing depth ≥5 mm and ≤7 mm, and clinical attachment loss ≥3 mm and ≤5 mm after nonsurgical periodontal therapy in a minimum of three teeth of any quadrant.

Exclusion criteria: (1) Patients who required regenerative or resective osseous surgery were excluded from the study. (2) Female patients who were pregnant or on breastfeeding. Current smokers were excluded from the study.

Thirty patients fulfilling the above-mentioned criteria were randomly divided into three groups: Group I: 10 patients without any antibiotic prescription after flap surgery, Group II: 10 patients prescribed with metronidazole 400 mg thrice daily for 14 days [8] after routine periodontal flap surgery, and Group III: 10 patients prescribed with doxycycline 200 mg as booster dose for 1 day followed by successive doses of 100 mg once daily for 21 days [3] after routine periodontal flap surgery. A written consent was signed and detailed case history was recorded.

PI (Silness and Löe), GI (Löe and Silness), pocket probing depth (PPD; millimeters), and clinical attachment level (CAL; millimeters) were measured at baseline, 2 weeks after phase I therapy, and after 2 months following periodontal surgery.[9]

Methods

Presurgical protocol

  • On first visit, baseline recording of all parameters was done and they were further moved for phase I therapy [Figure 1]a, [Figure 1]d, [Figure 1]g and [Figure 2]a, [Figure 2]d, [Figure 2]g
  • Thorough scaling and root planning was performed and oral hygiene instructions were given
  • After 2 weeks, second recording of parameters was done [Figure 1]b, [Figure 1]e, [Figure 1]h and [Figure 2]b, [Figure 2]e, [Figure 2]h
  • Systemically healthy patients with persistent probing depths ≥5 mm and ≤7 mm and CAL ≥3 mm and ≤5 mm in at least three teeth in a quadrant, PI and gingival indices ≤2, and those not requiring any regenerative or osseous resective surgery were subjected to periodontal flap surgery in a specially prepared surgical room setup. Hence, a quadrant site which fulfils inclusion criteria was subjected to conventional flap surgery
  • All the patients were subjected to routine blood investigations.
Figure 1: Gingival index for Group I: (a) baseline, (b) 2 weeks, and (c) 3 months; Group II: (d) baseline, (e) 2 weeks, and (f) 3 months; and Group III: (g) baseline, (h) 2 weeks, and (i) 3 months (original)

Click here to view
Figure 2: Pocket depth for Group I: (a) baseline, (b) 2 weeks, and (c) 3 months; Group II: (d) baseline, (e) 2 weeks, and (f) 3 months; and Group III: (g) baseline, (h) 2 weeks, and (i) 3 months (original)

Click here to view


Surgical procedure

All personnel assigned in the operating room practiced standard presurgical procedures. Preprocedural mouth rinse with 10 mL of 0.2% chlorhexidine was done. Proper barrier methods were used. Conventional flap surgery was carried out in the selected quadrant. Postsurgical instructions were given.

In Group I, patients were not prescribed with any antibiotic, Group II patients were prescribed metronidazole 400 mg three times a day for 14 days, and Group III patients were prescribed doxycycline 100 mg twice a day as a loading dose and 100 mg once daily thereafter for 21 days. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (ibuprofen 400 mg + paracetamol 325 mg) twice daily for a minimum of 3 days was prescribed for all the three groups after surgery. After 7 days, removal of periodontal packs and sutures was done. After 1 month, reinforcement of oral hygiene instructions was done. After 3 months, third recording of all clinical parameters was done [Figure 1]c, [Figure 1]f, [Figure 1]i and [Figure 2]c, [Figure 2]f, [Figure 2]i.

Statistical analysis

Statistical analyses of the entire data were performed using SPSS 16 software program. The mean values and standard deviation values for each parameter included were calculated using analysis of variance. Intergroup comparison and intragroup comparison were done using paired t-test and unpaired t-test, respectively. P values from all statistical tests were presented, but were considered statistically significant at P ≤ 0.05 and highly significant at P ≤ 0.001.


  Results Top


All the patients returned regularly for the maintenance program, without any dropouts. None of the patients belonging to Groups I, II, and III developed any allergy or unfavorable response to the drug, requiring discontinuation.

Comparison was done at two levels:

  1. Intergroup comparison of mean values of each parameter in all the three groups
  2. Intragroup comparison of mean values of each parameter after 2 weeks and 3 months from baseline in all the three groups.


I. Intergroup comparison

1. Plaque index

On comparing the mean values for Group I and Group II, Group I and Group III, and Group II and Group III, PI at 2 weeks and 3 months from baseline was found to be insignificant [Table 1], [Graph 1].
Table 1: Comparison of mean values of plaque index between Group I and Group II, Group I and Group III, and Group II and Group III at baseline, 2 weeks, and 3 months (original)

Click here to view



2. Gingival index

On comparing the mean values for Group I and Group II, GI at 2 weeks was found to be highly significant and more in Group II when compared with Group I (P = 0.001), but at baseline and 3 months GI was found to be insignificant. On comparing the mean values for Group I and Group III, GI at 2 weeks was found to be significantly more in Group III when compared with Group I (P = 0.031), whereas at baseline and 3 months GI between the two groups was found to be insignificant. On comparing the mean values for Group II and Group III, GI at baseline, 2 weeks, and 3 months were found to be insignificant [Table 2], [Graph 1].
Table 2: Comparison of mean values of gingival index between Group I and Group II, Group I and Group III, and Group II and Group III at baseline, 2 weeks, and 3 months (original)

Click here to view


3. Pocket probing depth

On comparing the mean values for Group I and Group II, PPD after 2 weeks was found to be significantly more in Group II (P = 0.008), but at baseline and 3 months PPD was found to be insignificant. On comparing the mean values for Group I and Group III, PPD at 2 weeks was found to be significantly more in Group III (P = 0.028), but comparing between the mean values at baseline and 3 months PPD was found to be insignificant. On comparing the mean values for Group II and Group III, PPD at baseline, 2 weeks, and 3 months was found to be insignificant [Table 3], [Graph 1].
Table 3: Comparison of mean values of pocket probing depth in Group I and Group II, Group I and Group III, and Group II and Group III at baseline, 2 weeks, and 3 months (original)

Click here to view


4. Clinical attachment level

On comparing the mean values for Group I and Group II, CAL at 2 weeks was found to be significantly more in Group II (P = 0.017), but at baseline and 3 months CAL was found to be insignificant. On comparing the mean values for Group I and Group III, CAL at 2 weeks was found to be significantly more in Group III (P = 0.015), but at baseline and 3 months CAL was found to be insignificant. On comparing the mean values for Group II and Group III, CAL at baseline, 2 weeks, and 3 months was found to be insignificant [Table 4], [Graph 1].
Table 4: Comparison of mean values of clinical attachment level in Group I and Group II, Group I and Group II, I and Group II and Group III at baseline, 2 weeks, and 3 months (original)

Click here to view


II. Intragroup comparison

In this category, the comparison of values for each parameter was done within every group. The mean value of each parameter was compared between baseline and 2 weeks, baseline and 3 months, and 2 weeks and 3 months.

1. Plaque index

On intragroup comparison, the mean difference values of PI when compared after 2 weeks from baseline and after 3 months from baseline for Group I, Group II, and Group III were found to be highly significant [Table 5], [Graph 2].
Table 5: Intragroup comparison of plaque index after 2 weeks and 3 months from baseline in Group I, Group II, and Group III

Click here to view



2. Gingival index

On intragroup comparison, the mean difference values of GI when compared after 2 weeks and 3 months from baseline for Group I, Group II, and Group III were found to be highly significant (P = 0.00). When compared after 3 months from 2 weeks' values of GI for Group I, Group II, and Group III, the values of Group I and Group II were found to be highly significant (P = 0.00), whereas the values for Group III were significant [Table 6], [Graph 2].
Table 6: Intragroup comparison of gingival index after 2 weeks and 3 months from baseline in Group I, Group II, and Group III

Click here to view


3. Pocket probing depth

On intragroup comparison, the mean difference values of PPD when compared after 2 weeks from baseline, and 3 months from baseline between 2 weeks and 3 months for Group I, Group II, and Group III were found to be highly significant [Table 7], [Graph 2].
Table 7: Intragroup comparison of pocket probing depth after 2 weeks and 3 months from baseline in Group I, Group II, and Group III

Click here to view


4. Clinical attachment level

On intragroup comparison, mean difference values of CAL for Group I, Group II and Group III when compared after 2 weeks and 3 months from baseline were found to be highly significant (P = 0.00). Also when mean difference values were compared after 3 months from 2 weeks, value for Group I was found significant (P = 0.01) whereas values for Group II and Group III were highly significant (P = 0.00) [Table 8] and [Graph 2].
Table 8: Intragroup comparison of clinical attachment level after 2 weeks and 3 months from baseline in Group I, Group II, and Group III

Click here to view



  Discussion Top


Although mechanical debridement usually results in significant improvement in periodontal health, some patients or some sites within an individual patient's mouth do not respond as well as anticipated, as it may fail to remove pathogenic organisms because of their location in subepithelial gingival tissue (Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans), crevicular epithelial cells (A. actinomycetemcomitans, Peptostreptococcus micros, Prevotella intermedia, and Porphyromonas gingivalis), collagenous substrata (P. gingivalis), altered cementum and radicular dentinal tubuli, subgingival hard deposits or furcations, or other anatomic features complicating adequate instrumentation.[10]

This study was designed to compare and evaluate the surgical treatment outcomes and the clinical parameters on adjunctive use of doxycycline and metronidazole after routine periodontal flap surgery.

On intragroup comparison, within Groups I, II, and III, there was significant reduction in PI and GI scores after 2 weeks and 3 months from baseline.

On intergroup comparison between Groups I and II, I and III, and II and III, there was no significant reduction in PI and GI scores at baseline, 2 weeks, and 3 months. The result that we have achieved is because of the reinforcement of oral hygiene instructions at regular intervals and satisfactory maintenance of oral hygiene by the patients. This showed that patients were compliant throughout the study in all the three groups. These results are in accordance with a study done by Mohan et al. in 2014 which compared doxycycline over amoxicillin and placebo and found no significant change in PI and GI between the three groups post surgery.[11]

Soder et al. in 1999 had done a longitudinal clinical trial and found that nonsmoking patients who received metronidazole adjunctive to nonsurgical therapy showed significant improvement in inflammation and bleeding on probing than placebo group.[9]

On intragroup comparison, within Group I there was a significant reduction in PPD and gain in CAL after 2 weeks and 3 months from baseline. These results after 2 weeks were thought to be obtained because of the complete removal of the supragingival plaque and calculus, and maintenance of oral hygiene by the patient. The results after 3 months were observed because of degranulation of remaining periodontal pockets, healing, and reinforcement of oral hygiene instructions.

Within Group II and Group III, there was a significant reduction in PPD and gain in CAL after 2 weeks and 3 months from baseline. These results were observed because of degranulation of remaining periodontal pockets, healing, and adjunctive use of metronidazole and doxycycline in Group II and Group III, respectively, which further has their action on the remaining tissue-invasive microorganisms that remain after surgical debridement of periodontal pockets.

On comparing PPD and CAL Group I with Group II and Group III, Group II and Group III showed significantly more reduction in PPD when compared with Group I after 3 months. This result is attributable to the fact that some tissue-invasive microorganisms, present subgingivally in periodontal pockets, cannot be completely removed by mechanical debridement. Hence, adjunctive use of metronidazole and doxycycline effectively reduced these tissue invasive microorganisms, thereby reducing PPD, hence gain in attachment level. These findings are similar to the studies done by Soder et al.,[9] Loesche et al.,[12] and Elter et al.[5]

Studies conducted by Ng and Bissada [3] and Mohan et al.[11] showed similar results with the use of doxycycline.

There was no statistically significant difference between Group II and Group III for reduction in PPD after 3 months from baseline and 2 weeks.

Loesche et al. conducted a double-blind investigation in patients with elevated proportions or species of spirochetes in two or more plaque samples. They were randomly assigned to receive either metronidazole 250 mg thrice a day for first week or placebo after the completion of all debridement procedures. When the patients were reexamined 4–6 weeks later, patients in the metronidazole group exhibited a highly significant apparent gain in attachment levels relative to the patients without metronidazole.[12]

Studies in which randomized controlled trials were conducted reported that selective antimicrobial agents when used as adjunctive to periodontal surgical procedures improved the periodontal parameters, whereas meta-analysis studies reported that adjunctively used systemic antimicrobials did not show statistically significant results. However, in this study, there was no significant difference in the clinical parameters such as PI and GI between antibiotic prescribed and no antibiotic groups, but there was significant improvement in PPD and CAL among groups prescribed with metronidazole and doxycycline than that of nonantibiotic groups.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.



 
  References Top

1.
Bathla S, Manocha A. Chronic periodontitis. In: Bathla S, editor. Periodontics Revisited, 1st ed. Panama: Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers; 2011. p. 186-90.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.
Slots J, Ting M. Systemic antibiotics in the treatment of periodontal disease. Periodontol 2000 2002;28:106-76.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.
Ng VW, Bissada NF. Clinical evaluation of systemic doxycycline and ibuprofen administration as an adjunctive treatment for adult periodontitis. J Periodontol 1998;69:772-6.  Back to cited text no. 3
    
4.
Watts T, Palmer R, Floyd P. Metronidazole: A double-blind trial in untreated human periodontal disease. J Clin Periodontol 1986;13:939-43.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.
Elter JR, Lawrence HP, Offenbacher S, Beck JD. Meta-analysis of the effect of systemic metronidazole as an adjunct to scaling and root planing for adult periodontitis. J Periodontal Res 1997;32:487-96.  Back to cited text no. 5
    
6.
Winkel EG, van Winkelhoff AJ, Timmerman MF, van der Velden U, van der Weijden GA. Amoxicillin plus metronidazole in the treatment of adult periodontitis patients – A double blind placebo-controlled study. J Clin Periodontol 2001;28:296-305.  Back to cited text no. 6
    
7.
Aitken S, Birek P, Kulkarni GV, Lee WL, McCulloch CA. Serial doxycycline and metronidazole in prevention of recurrent periodontitis in high-risk patients. J Periodontol 1992;63:87-92.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.
van Winkelhoff AJ. Antibiotics in periodontics: Are we getting somewhere? J Clin Periodontol 2005;32:1094-5.  Back to cited text no. 8
    
9.
Soder B, Nedlich U, Jin LJ. Longitudinal effect of non-surgical treatment and systemic metronidazole for 1 week in smokers and non-smokers with refractory periodontitis: A 5-year study. J Periodontol 1999;70:761-71.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.
Wright TL, Ellen RP, Lacroix JM, Sinnadurai S, Mittelman MW. Effects of metronidazole on Porphyromonas gingivalis biofilms. J Periodontal Res 1997;32:473-7.  Back to cited text no. 10
    
11.
Mohan RR, Doraswamy DC, Hussain AM, Gundannavar G, Subbaiah SA, Jayaprakash D. Evaluation of the role of antibiotics in preventing postoperative complication after routine periodontal surgery: A comparative clinical study. J Indian Soc Periodontol 2014;18:205-12.  Back to cited text no. 11
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
12.
Loesche WJ, Giordano JR, Hujoei F, Schwarz J, Smith BA. Metronidazole in periodontitis: Reduced need for surgery. J Clin Periodontol 1992;19:103-12.  Back to cited text no. 12
    


    Figures

  [Figure 1], [Figure 2]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3], [Table 4], [Table 5], [Table 6], [Table 7], [Table 8]



 

Top
   
 
  Search
 
Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
Access Statistics
Email Alert *
Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)

 
  In this article
   Abstract
  Introduction
   Materials and Me...
  Results
  Discussion
   References
   Article Figures
   Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed35    
    Printed0    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded9    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal