A double-blind, randomized, parallel, comparative study was designed to evaluate the long-term safety and efficacy of subgingivally administered minocycline ointment versus a vehicle control.
One hundred four patients (104) with moderate to severe adult periodontitis (34 to 64 years of age; mean 46 years) were enrolled in the study. Following scaling and root planing, patients were randomized to receive either 2% minocycline ointment or a matched vehicle control. Study medication was administered directly into the periodontal pocket with a specially designed, graduated, disposable applicator at baseline; week 2; and at months 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12. Scaling and root planing was repeated at months 6 and 12. Standard clinical variables (including probing depth and attachment level) were evaluated at baseline and at months 1, 3, 6, 9, 12, and 15. Microbiological sampling using DNA probes was done at baseline; at week 2; and at months 1, 3, 6, 9, 12, and 15.
Both treatment groups showed significant and clinically relevant reductions in the numbers of each of the 7 microorganisms measured during the entire 15-month study period. When differences were detected, sites treated with minocycline ointment always produced statistically significantly greater reductions than sites which received the vehicle control. For initial pockets > or =5 mm, a mean reduction in probing depth of 1.9 mm was seen in the test sites, versus 1.2 mm in the control sites. Sites with a baseline probing depth > or =7 mm and bleeding index >2 showed an average of 2.5 mm reduction with minocycline versus 1.5 mm with the vehicle. Gains in attachment (0.9 mm and 1.1 mm) were observed in minocycline-treated sites, with baseline probing depth > or =5 mm and > or =7 mm, respectively, compared with 0.5 mm and 0.7 mm gain at control sites. Subgingival administration of minocycline ointment was well tolerated.
Overall, the results demonstrate that repeated subgingival administration of minocycline ointment in the treatment of adult periodontitis is safe and leads to significant adjunctive improvement after subgingival instrumentation in both clinical and microbiologic variables over a 15-month period.
OBJECTIVE: The aims of this study were to establish how many dental hygienists were licensed to practice in Canada, Japan, USA and the 18 member states of the European Economic Area (EEA) and to compare these with the populations and numbers of dentists practising in the countries concerned. METHOD: Data for the overall populations, numbers of 'active' dentists, of dental hygienists and of employed dental hygienists in the member states of the EEA in 1998 were taken from the responses to a Council of European Chief Dental Officers survey carried out in 2000/2001. Data for these variables for Canada, Japan and the USA in 1998 were accessed from published reports. The ratios of population: active dentist; population: dental hygienist; and active dentist: dental hygienist were calculated and compared. RESULTS: The overall populations and total number of active dentists in the 18 EEA member states and Canada plus Japan plus the USA were broadly similar in 1998 (EEA overall population 381 million with 245169 active dentists: Canada/Japan/USA overall population 421 million with 253825 active dentists). However, there were only 13295 dental hygienists in the EEA as opposed to a total of 215435 in Canada, Japan and the USA. In terms of population:dental hygienist and active dentist: dental hygienist ratios the UK was found to have proportionally far fewer dental hygienists than Canada, Japan, USA or the four Nordic members of the EEA. CONCLUSION: The survey revealed that relative to overall populations and numbers of dentists, there are far fewer dental hygienists in the EEA than in Canada, Japan and the USA and that scope for the UK to import dental hygienists from other EEA member states is probably very limited.
Comment In: Br Dent J. 2004 Feb 14;196(3):12714963418