| Article Access Statistics | | | Viewed | 5296 | | | Printed | 240 | | | Emailed | 0 | | | PDF Downloaded | 180 | | | Comments | [Add] | | | Cited by others | 4 | | |
|
Click on image for details.
|
|
| SHORT COMMUNICATION |
|
| Year : 2016 | Volume
: 48
| Issue : 2 | Page : 208-213 |
Azithromycin buccal patch in treatment of chronic periodontitis
Sajith Abdul Latif1, KL Vandana2, J Thimmashetty3, Priyanka Jairaj Dalvi2
1 Department of Periodontics, Bapuji Dental College and Hospital, Davangere, Karnataka, India
2 Department of Periodontics, College of Dental Sciences, Bapuji Pharmacy College, Davangere, Karnataka, India
3 Department of Pharmaceutics, Bapuji Pharmacy College, Davangere, Karnataka, India
Correspondence Address:
K L Vandana
Department of Periodontics, College of Dental Sciences, Bapuji Pharmacy College, Davangere, Karnataka
India
 Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None  | Check |
DOI: 10.4103/0253-7613.178829
Aim: This study aims to explore the clinical, microbiological, and biochemical impact of azithromycin (AZM) buccal patch in chronic generalized patients as a monotherapy as well as an adjunct to nonsurgical therapy.
Materials and Methods: A parallel design was used forty periodontitis patients were randomly allocated into five groups, namely Group 1 scaling root planing (SRP) alone, Group 2 (SRP + AZM patch group), Group 3 (SRP + AZM tablet group), Group 4 (AZM patch monotherapy), and Group 5 (AZM tablet as monotherapy). Plaque index, gingival bleeding index, modified gingival index, probing pocket depth (PPD), and clinical attachment level (CAL) were assessed at baseline and 21 and 90 days. Subgingival pooled plaque sample was collected to assess periodontopathogens like Porphyromonas gingivalis and Prevotella intermedia (Pi) by anaerobic culture method. Tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-α) was also evaluated at baseline and 21 days. Periodontal maintenance was performed in Group 1 until 90th day, and clinical parameter was assessed at the end of 90th day.
Results: SRP + AZM tablets showed greater reduction in clinical parameters (P < 0.05) AZM as monotherapy did not offer clinical benefits over SRP. Baseline data were compared at the end, i.e., 90th day a significant reduction in plaque scores, gingival bleeding, and PPD was observed however no significant gain in the clinical attachment was observed.
Conclusion: The monotherapy resulted in no improvement of periodontal parameters, microbial parameters, and TNF-α level. It is safe to use AZM + SRP as a mode of nonsurgical treatment in periodontitis patients.
[FULL TEXT] [PDF]*
|
