Full‐Mouth Ultrasonic Debridement Associated With Amoxicillin and Metronidazole in the Treatment of Severe Chronic Periodontitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the adjunctive clinical, microbiologic, and immunologic effects of the systemic administration of amoxicillin and metronidazole in the full-mouth ultrasonic debridement of patients with severe chronic periodontitis. METHODS: Twenty-five patients presenting at least eight teeth with probing depth (PD) > or =5 mm and bleeding on probing (BOP) were selected and randomly assigned to full-mouth ultrasonic debridement + placebo (control group) or full-mouth ultrasonic debridement + amoxicillin and metronidazole (test group). The clinical outcomes evaluated were visible plaque index, BOP, position of the gingival margin, relative attachment level (RAL), and PD. Real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) was used for quantitative analysis of Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans (previously Actinobacillus actinomycetemcomitans), Porphyromonas gingivalis, and Tannerella forsythia (previously T. forsythensis). The enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) technique permitted the detection of prostaglandin E(2,) interleukin-1beta, and interferon-gamma levels in gingival crevicular fluid. All parameters were evaluated at baseline and at 3 and 6 months post-treatment. RESULTS: At 6 months, the test treatment resulted in lower BOP and an additional reduction (0.83 mm) in PD (P <0.05). Data also showed RAL gain > or =2 mm at 43.52% of sites in control patients compared to 58.03% of sites in test patients (P <0.05). However, both groups had similar mean RAL gain (1.68 and 1.88 mm for the control and test groups, respectively). Real-time PCR and ELISA failed to identify significant differences between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Both treatments resulted in significant clinical improvements; however, there was a slight, but significantly greater, improvement in BOP and the percentage of sites with PD > or =5 mm exhibiting RAL gain > or =2 mm in the test group. Nevertheless, no improvement in the microbiologic or immunologic outcome was observed with the adjunctive use of systemic amoxicillin and metronidazole.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".