METHODS: Databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register databases) were searched up to and including July 2016. The primary outcome was probing depth (PD), and the secondary outcomes were changes in clinical attachment level (CAL) and bone defect (BD) fill. The mean differences (MD) of outcomes and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for each variable were calculated using random effect model.
RESULTS: Eight clinical studies were included. Seven studies used alendronate as an adjunct to SRP; of these, four studies used topical application and three used oral alendronate. Considering the effects of adjunctive bisphosphonates as compared to SRP alone, a high degree of heterogeneity for PD (Q value = 39.6, P
METHODS: in order to address the focused question: Is aPDT a useful therapeutic protocol for oral decontamination?, an electronic search without time or language restrictions was conducted up to July 2017 in indexed databases using the combination of different key words including photochemotherapy, lasers, photodynamic therapy, disinfection, mouth, saliva and oral. The exclusion criteria included reviews, case-reports, case-series, commentaries, letters to the editor, interviews, and updates. Four randomized control trials were included and processed for data extraction.
RESULTS: all studies reported that aPDT was effective in reducing the overall oral microbial load in saliva. Considering the effects of aPDT+photosensitizer (PS) compared with PS alone, there was no heterogeneity noticed for aPDT+PS (Q value=0.15, P=0.69, I(2)=0%). The overall mean difference for bacterial count in CFU/ml between aPDT+PS and PS alone was also not significant (weighted mean difference=-0.41, 95% CI=-1.12 to 0.29, p=0.24) at follow-up.
CONCLUSION: the efficacy of aPDT for oral decontamination remains unclear. Further well-designed randomized clinical trials assessing the efficacy of aPDT reducing the oral microbial load are need.