4.5 Article

Controlled local delivery of tetracycline with polymer strips in the treatment of periodontitis

Journal

JOURNAL OF PERIODONTOLOGY
Volume 73, Issue 1, Pages 13-19

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1902/jop.2002.73.1.13

Keywords

clinical trials; periodontal diseases/drug therapy; tetracycline/therapeutic use; planing; comparison studies

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Several antibacterial agents have been studied as a means to produce bactericidal or bacteriostatic activity as an adjunct to mechanical treatment of periodontal disease. The primary purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of tetracycline strips administered singly or in multiples in conjunction with root planing, versus root planing alone, or to an untreated control. Secondary purposes were to compare gingival crevicular fluid (GCF) volume and GCF concentrations of tetracycline in pockets treated with strips; to evaluate strip insertion time; and to compare ease of placement for single or multiple strips. Methods: Using a 4-quadrant design, 4 test teeth in 24 patients were treated with either root planing and single strip application; root planing and multiple strip application; root planing alone; or an untreated control. Results: Single and multiple strip placement resulted in a significant reduction in probing depth (P = 0.033) compared to root planing and untreated groups. The multiple strip group significantly decreased bleeding on probing (P = 0.05) compared to all other treatment groups. There was no treatment effect on GCF; however, there was a significant reduction in the GCF volume over time (P = 0.001). The time required for placement was, on average, 1.9 minutes for single strips and 3.25 minutes for multiple strips. Conclusions: Our data suggest that multiple strips are superior to a single strip in reducing bleeding on probing, and that local delivery of tetracycline is superior to root planing alone in reducing probing depth. J Periodontol 2002;73:13-19.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available