A placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial of antibiotics versus probiotics as an adjuvant to nonsurgical periodontal treatment among smokers with Stage III, Grade C generalized periodontitis.

BACKGROUND: Probiotics are viable microorganisms, which if delivered in appropriate dose can provide health benefits. Lactobacillus reuteri (DM17938+ATCC PTA 5289) has been recommended as a safe choice for probiotics. The objective of this study is to compare the improvement in the periodontal parameters amongst smokers with generalized periodontitis with Stage III, Grade C treated with nonsurgical periodontal treatment (NSPT) to which either an antibiotics or probiotics were given as an adjuvant. METHODS: Sixty smokers with Stage III, Grade C generalized periodontitis were randomized in two groups after taking informed consent. Periodontal parameters including bleeding on probing (BOP), probing depth (PD), attachment loss (AL), gingival index (GI), and plaque index (PI) were recorded. Group 1 received (after NSPT and oral hygiene instructions) amoxicillin and metronidazole for 7 days and a placebo for probiotics for 30 days. Group 2 was provided (after NSPT and oral hygiene instructions) with one tablet of Lactobacillus reuteri probiotics (2 × 108 CFU) twice daily for 30 days and placebo antibiotics for 7 days. The periodontal parameters were recorded again at 1- and 3-month follow-ups as outcome variables. Mean, standard deviation, and confidence interval were reported using SPSS 20.0. RESULTS: A statistically significant clinical improvement in the PD, BOP, PI, and GI were observed in both the groups at 3-month follow-up. However, the AL remained unchanged in both the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Administration of probiotics and antibiotics along with NSPT yield statistically significant differences in PD and BOP from baseline to 3-month follow-up. However, between the group differences were not statistically significant for the periodontal parameters (AL, PD, and BOP).

A comparative study on the effect of propolis and dentine bonding agent in treating dentine hypersensitivity.

OBJECTIVE: To find out if there is a difference in the efficacy of propolis and seventh-generation dentine bonding agent in reducing dentine hypersensitivity. METHODS: The randomised, single-blind study was conducted at the Department of Periodontology, Dow International Dental College, Dow University of Health Sciences, Karachi, from December 2018 to November 2019, and comprised patients with complaint of dentine hypersensitivity who were divided in group A which received 30% ethanolic extract of propolis, and group B which received dentine bonding agent. Recordings of dentine hypersensitivity were obtained at baseline, before and after the application of experimental agents, and on days 7, 15 and 30. The response was measured using the Schiff Cold Air Sensitivity Scale. Data was analysed using SPSS 20. RESULTS: Of the 52 patients, 19 (36.5%) were males and 33 (63.5%) were females. The overall mean age was 29.9 ± 6.5 years. Majority of the subjects were students i.e. 16 (30.8%) and housewives i.e. 11 (21.2%), while drivers, teachers, businessmen etc. constituted of 25 (48%) subjects. Significant reduction of dentine hypersensitivity was observed in both groups (p<0.05). Intergroup comparison showed non-significant differences (p>0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Propolis and dentine bonding agent had significant effect in reducing dentine hypersensitivity. The difference between the two was not significant.