4.6 Article

Metronidazole alone or with amoxicillin as adjuncts to non-surgical treatment of chronic periodontitis: a 1-year double-blinded, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PERIODONTOLOGY
Volume 39, Issue 12, Pages 1149-1158

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jcpe.12004

Keywords

amoxicillin; chronic periodontitis; metronidazole; periodontal disease; periodontal treatment; scaling and root planing

Funding

  1. Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de Sao Paulo (FAPESP, Brazil) [07/55291-9]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aim To evaluate the effects of the adjunctive use of metronidazole (MTZ) or MTZ + amoxicillin (AMX) in the treatment of generalized chronic periodontitis (ChP). A secondary aim was to examine a possible added effect of chlorhexidine to these therapies. Methods One hundred and eighteen subjects received scaling and root planing (SRP) only or with MTZ [400 mg/thrice a day (TID)] or MTZ+AMX (500 mg/TID) for 14 days. Half of the subjects in each group rinsed with 0.12% chlorhexidine twice a day (BID) for 2 months. Subjects were clinically monitored at baseline, 3, 6 and 12-months post-therapy. Results The two antibiotic groups showed lower mean number of sites with probing depth (PD) =5 mm and fewer subjects exhibiting =9 of these sites at 1-year post-treatment. Logistic regression analysis showed that antibiotics were the only significant predictors of subjects presenting =4 sites with PD =5 mm at 1 year (MTZ+AMX: OR, 13.33; 95%CI, 3.75-47.39/p = 0.0000; MTZ: OR, 7.26; 95%CI, 2.26-23.30/p = 0.0004). The frequency of adverse events did not differ between the two antibiotic treatments (p > 0.05). The chlorhexidine subgroups showed a trend (p > 0.05) to present fewer residual sites =5 mm compared with the placebo subgroups at 1 year. Conclusion Treatment of generalized ChP is significantly improved by the adjunctive use of MTZ+AMX and MTZ.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available