Background Systemic antimicrobials have been used as an adjunctive therapy for the treatment of periodontitis. Nevertheless, it is unclear whether the use of antimicrobials may improve tooth survival in patients with periodontitis. The main objective of this overview of systematic reviews (SRs) with meta-analyses was to assess the evidence supporting systemic antimicrobials for improving tooth survival in patients suffering from periodontitis. Information on adverse events was also extracted from SRs.Methods PubMed and EMBASE databases were searched independently (up to 1st August 2013) to identify SRs with meta-analyses on the use of systemic antimicrobials as an adjunctive treatment to scaling and root planing (SRP) in the treatment of periodontitis. Tooth survival and adverse events were assessed. Clinical effect was also assessed based on endpoints including clinical attachment level and probing depth. The methodological quality of the SRs was assessed by two authors using two checklists (AMSTAR and OQAQ).Results No data on tooth survival after treatment with SRP and antimicrobials were found. Nine SRs were included in this overview. Three SRs showed statistically significant outcome improvement with the use of antimicrobials, although the clinical relevance may be questionable. One SR showed better results based on surrogate endpoints; however, short-term adverse events were more pronounced with the use of antimicrobials. The reporting of long-term data on clinical effects, adverse events and bacterial resistance is scarce. The SRs were of heterogeneous quality.Conclusions Evidence of the efficacy of systemic antimicrobials on improving tooth survival is lacking. Further research focused on tooth survival and adverse events should be performed to provide more robust evidence of the benefits of using systemic antimicrobials for treating periodontitis.
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science
1
2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences
1
2%
Social Sciences
1
2%
Other
1
2%
Unknown
14
33%
Attention Score in Context
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 June 2015.
All research outputs
#6,359,674
of 22,771,140 outputs
Outputs from British Dental Journal
#2,010
of 6,040 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#70,425
of 260,974 outputs
Outputs of similar age from British Dental Journal
#66
of 139 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,771,140 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,040 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 260,974 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 139 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.
