Clinical response of localized recurrent periodontitis treated with scaling, root planing, and tetracycline fiber

The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical efficacy of scaling and root planing alone versus tetracycline fiber therapy used adjunctively with scaling and root planing in the treatment of nonresponsive active periodontitis in patients under supportive periodontal therapy. Thirty patients who were receiving supportive treatment and had at least two nonadjacent periodontitis sites with a probing depth of between 4 and 8 mm and bleeding on probing, or had aspartate aminotransferase (AST) levels above 800 microIU in the gingival crevicular fluid in separate quadrants participated in this study. For each patient, the test sites were treated with scaling and root planing plus tetracycline fibers while the control site was treated with scaling and root planing only. Probing depths, clinical attachment levels, gingival recession, AST levels, and bleeding on probing were recorded and subgingival plaque samples were collected at baseline and 1, 3, and 6 months following treatment. At 3 months after treatment, there was a reduction of bleeding on probing and probing depth, and a gain of clinical attachment in both test and control sites. The mean reduction in probing depth of the test sites was 1.38 mm and the attachment gain was 0.8 mm after 6 months. The clinical response obtained at 3 months following therapy was maintained throughout the 6-month follow-up period. However, there were no statistically significant differences between sites treated with scaling and root planing alone and those treated with combined tetracycline therapy. Most of the reductions of probing depths in the fiber group were attributed to gingival recession. The present study did not confirm the efficacy of adjunctive tetracycline fibers in treating nonresponsive sites in maintenance subjects with regard to probing depth reduction or clinical attachment gain. Reinfection of the pockets from untreated sites and extra-crevicular regions may explain the insignificant response to local tetracycline therapy.