4.6 Review

Systemic antibiotics in the treatment of aggressive periodontitis. A systematic review and a Bayesian Network meta-analysis

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PERIODONTOLOGY
卷 42, 期 7, 页码 647-657

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jcpe.12427

关键词

aggressive periodontitis; amoxicillin; anti-infective agents; metronidazole; root planing; systematic review

资金

  1. Sao Paulo Research Foundation (FAPESP, Brazil) [2012/09645-1]
  2. National Science Council in Taiwan [NSC101-2314B-002-197-MY2]
  3. Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de Sao Paulo (FAPESP) [12/09645-1] Funding Source: FAPESP

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aim: The aim of this study was to assess the effect of systemic antibiotic therapy on the treatment of aggressive periodontitis (AgP). Methods: This study was conducted and reported in accordance with the PRISMA statement. The MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL databases were searched up to June 2014 for randomized clinical trials comparing the treatment of subjects with AgP with either scaling and root planing (SRP) alone or associated with systemic antibiotics. Bayesian network meta-analysis was prepared using the Bayesian random-effects hierarchical models and the outcomes reported at 6-month post-treatment. Results: Out of 350 papers identified, 14 studies were eligible. Greater gain in clinical attachment (CA) (mean difference [MD]: 1.08mm; p<0.0001) and reduction in probing depth (PD) (MD: 1.05mm; p<0.00001) were observed for SRP+metronidazole (Mtz), and for SRP+Mtz+amoxicillin (Amx) (MD: 0.45mm, MD: 0.53mm, respectively; p<0.00001) than SRP alone/placebo. Bayesian network meta-analysis showed additional benefits in CA gain and PD reduction when SRP was associated with systemic antibiotics. Conclusions: SRP plus systemic antibiotics led to an additional clinical effect compared with SRP alone in the treatment of AgP. Of the antibiotic protocols available for inclusion into the Bayesian network meta-analysis, Mtz and Mtz/Amx provided to the most beneficial outcomes.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据