A dual-strain Lactobacilli reuteri probiotic improves the treatment of residual pockets: A randomized controlled clinical trial.

AIM: To examine the adjunctive effect of a Lactobacillus reuteri probiotic (ATCC PTA 5289 & DSM 17938) on the re-instrumentation of residual pockets. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study included 39 previously non-surgically treated periodontitis patients. A re-instrumentation was carried out, and probiotic and/or placebo drops were applied according to the study protocoll. Patients afterwards received lozenges to use 2×/day for 12 weeks. Probing pocket depth (PPD), recession, bleeding on probing and plaque levels were analysed, next to the microbiological impact. RESULTS: No effects of the probiotic drops could be found. However, after 24 weeks, the overall PPD in the probiotic lozenges group (2.64 ± 0.33 mm) was significantly lower compared to the control lozenges (2.92 ± 0.42 mm). This difference was even more pronounced in moderate (4-6 mm) and deep (≥7 mm) pockets. In the probiotic lozenges group, there were also significantly more pockets converting from ≥4 mm at baseline to ≤3 mm at 24 weeks (67 ± 18% versus 54 ± 17%) and less sites in need for surgery (4 ± 4% versus 8 ± 6%). However, the probiotic products did not influence the microbiological counts of the periodontopathogens. CONCLUSION: The adjunctive consumption of L. reuteri lozenges after re-instrumentation improved the PPD reduction, without an impact on pocket colonization with periodontopathogens.

The usage of a lactobacilli probiotic in the non-surgical therapy of peri-implantitis: A randomized pilot study.

OBJECTIVES: Examine the clinical and microbiological benefits of a dual-strain Lactobacillus reuteri probiotic on the non-surgical therapy of initial peri-implantitis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This randomized, double-blind study targeted patients with initial peri-implantitis, that is peri-implantitis with a maximum mean probing pocket depth of 6 mm and maximum 3 mm bone loss compared with loading. A full-mouth prophylaxis was performed and the peri-implantitis sites were debrided. Subsequently, local application of the study drops was carried out at the peri-implantitis sites and the study lozenges were handed out. The patients in the probiotic group received drops and lozenges containing L. reuteri (ATCC PTA 5289 & DSM 17938), those in the control group received placebo products. At the implant level the measurements of interest were bleeding, probing pocket depth and plaque. Full-mouth bleeding and plaque scores were also recorded. Microbiological samples were taken from the tongue, saliva and subgingivally around the implants. RESULTS: All clinical parameters were significantly decreased after 12 and 24 weeks. At the implant level the only statistically significant difference was a greater decrease in plaque levels in the probiotic versus the control group (p = .002 at 24 weeks). At the full-mouth level, the only intergroup difference was the greater decrease in full-mouth bleeding on probing sites in the probiotic group compared with the control group (p < .001 at 24 weeks). Concerning the microbiological outcomes, no significant differences could be found at any time point, neither intra- nor intergroup. CONCLUSIONS: No adjunctive effects of the use of L. reuteri probiotics in the treatment of peri-implantitis were found.

Randomized pilot study on probiotic effects on recurrent candidiasis in oral lichen planus patients.

Some patients with oral lichen planus (OLP) experience recurrent oral candidiasis(OC). Probiotic bacteria have shown to reduce the oral Candida count in vivo. OBJECTIVE: To study whether probiotic intervention reduces recurrent OC in patients with OLP. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Twenty-two patients with symptomatic OLP were enrolled in the double-blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled intervention study. Lozenges containing Lactobacilli reuteri (DSM 17938 and ATCC PTA 5289) or placebo were dissolved intra-orally three times daily for 16 weeks, after which patients were followed up for 36 weeks. Mucosal symptoms, VAS pain, OLP severity score, plaque index (PI) and gingival index (GI), Candida count/carriage, and OC and/or need for symptomatic treatment were registered. Statistical significance was set at p < .05. RESULTS: No difference was observed between the groups during the intervention or follow-up in terms of recurrent OC (p = .966) or need for symptomatic treatment (p = 1.000). There was no difference in terms of Candida count (p = .96) or carriage over time (p = .511). GI decreased in the probiotic group and increased in the placebo group (p = .046). OLP severity score decreased in both groups during the study period (p = .039). Across the entire study period, the placebo group had higher VAS pain score (p = .037). CONCLUSIONS: Probiotic intervention did not reduce recurrent OC or Candida count/carriage, but the study experienced recruitment problems, which may have influenced results.