Treatment of Periodontitis by Local Administration of Minocycline Microspheres: A Controlled Trial
Open accessAbstract
Background: Periodontitis is an inflammatory condition of toothsupporting tissues that is usually treated by mechanical removal of plaque and microorganisms that adhere to teeth. This treatment, known as scaling and root planing, is not optimally effective. Adjunctive therapy with locally delivered antimicrobials has resulted in improved clinical outcomes such as probing depth reduction. This article reports on the efficacy and safety of locally administered microencapsulated minocycline. Methods: Seven hundred forty‐eight (748) patients with moderate to advanced periodontitis were enrolled in a multi‐center trial and randomized to 1 of 3 treatment arms: 1) scaling and root planing (SRP) alone; 2) SRP plus vehicle; or 3) SRP plus minocycline microspheres. The primary outcome measure was probing depth reduction at 9 months. Clinical assessments were performed at baseline and 1, 3, 6, and 9 months. Results: Minocycline microspheres plus scaling and root planing provided substantially more probing depth reduction than either SRP alone or SRP plus vehicle. The difference reached statistical significance after the first month and was maintained throughout the trial. The improved outcome was observed to be independent of patients’ smoking status, age, gender, or baseline disease level. There was no difference in the incidence of adverse effects among treatment groups. Conclusions: Scaling and root planing plus minocycline microspheres is more effective than scaling and root planing alone in reducing probing depths in periodontitis patients. J Periodontol 2001;72:1535‐1544.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Baseline mean probing depth for the Arestin and Perio Chip studies was approximately 5.80 mm, versus 4.27 mm in this study.
“The baseline means PD for Arestin and Perio Chip studies was ≈5.80 mm versus 4.27 mm in this study.”
From Evaluating efficacy of a novel dentifrice in reducing probing depths in Stage I and II periodontitis maintenance patients: A randomized, double-blind, positive controlled clinical trial (2021) · cites this paper as [33]
The Efficacy section’s baseline-characteristics table (p. 1538) gives mean probing depths of 5.8–5.9 mm for this minocycline-microsphere trial, supporting the approximately 5.80 mm figure for the Arestin study. The paper does not establish that figure for the Perio Chip study. The 4.27 mm value refers to the citing authors’ own study, not to a result reported by this source. (LLM, conf=0.88)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredPerio Chip (locally administered chlorhexidine) as an adjunct to scaling and root planing has shown a combined average probing depth reduction of 0.95 mm (vs 0.65 mm for scaling and root planing alone) in its two 9-month randomized controlled trials (n=447).
“Perio Chip (a locally administered chlorhexidine) also as an adjunct to SRP has shown the combined average of 0.95 mm (compared to 0.65 mm for SRP alone) in its two 9-month randomized controlled clinical trials (n = 447).33,34”
From Evaluating efficacy of a novel dentifrice in reducing probing depths in Stage I and II periodontitis maintenance patients: A randomized, double-blind, positive controlled clinical trial (2021) · cites this paper as [33]
Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredArestin (locally administered minocycline) as an adjunct to scaling and root planing has shown probing depth reductions of 1.32 mm (vs 1.08 mm for scaling and root planing alone) and 1.63 mm in its 9-month randomized controlled trial (n=748).
“Arestin (a locally administered minocycline) as an adjunct to SRP has shown PD reductions of 1.32 mm (compared to 1.08 mm for SRP alone) and 1.63 mm in its 9-month randomized controlled clinical trial (n = 748)”
From Evaluating efficacy of a novel dentifrice in reducing probing depths in Stage I and II periodontitis maintenance patients: A randomized, double-blind, positive controlled clinical trial (2021) · cites this paper as [33]
Split into 2 atoms — 1 confirmed, 1 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 44 · Cited by 252
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- [34]34. Tipton DA, Dabbous MK. Effects of nicotine on prolif- eration and extracelluar matrix production of human gin- gival fibroblasts in vitro. J Periodontol 1995;66:1056- 1064.
- Authors
- Williams, R. C., Paquette, D. W., Offenbacher, S., Adams, D. F., Armitage, G. C., Bray, K., Caton, J., Cochran, D. L., Drisko, C. H., Fiorellini, J. P., Giannobile, W. V., Grossi, S., Guerrero, D. M., Johnson, G. K., Lamster, I. B., Magnusson, I., Oringer, R. J., Persson, G. R., Van Dyke, T. E., Wolff, L. F., Santucci, E. A., Rodda, B. E., & Lessem, J.
- Affiliations
- University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
- Oregon Health & Science University (US)
- University of California, San Francisco (US)
- University of Missouri–Kansas City (US)
- The University of Texas at San Antonio (US)
- University of Louisville (US)
- Harvard University (US)
- University of Michigan (US)
- University at Buffalo, State University of New York (US)
- The Forsyth Institute (US)
- University of Iowa (US)
- Columbia University (US)
- University of Florida (US)
- Stony Brook University (US)
- University of Washington (US)
- University of Minnesota (US)
- Corresponding author
- Williams, Ray C.
- ORCID
- Venue
- Journal of Periodontology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2001-11
- Volume
- 72
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 1535-1544
- ISSN
- 0022-3492 (ISSN-L)
- 1943-3670
- OpenAlex
- W2165059229
- Cited by
- 252
- References
- 44
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 15
- FWCI
- 15.39
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- hdl.handle.net
- Locations
- Journal of Periodontology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Deep Blue (University of Michigan) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Dentistry › Periodontics › Oral microbiology and periodontitis research
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Urology › Periodontal Regeneration and Treatments
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Pharmacy › Oral and gingival health research
- Keywords
- periodontitis, local antimicrobial delivery, scaling and root planing, probing depth reduction, adjunctive periodontal therapy, smoking status
- MeSH terms
- Administration, Topical, Adult, Age Factors, Aged, Analysis of Variance, Anti-Bacterial Agents, Capsules, Combined Modality Therapy, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Gingival Hemorrhage, Humans, Male, Microspheres, Middle Aged, Minocycline, Periodontal Pocket, Periodontitis, Safety, Dental Scaling, Sex Factors, Smoking, Pharmaceutical Vehicles, Confidence Intervals, Odds Ratio, Treatment Outcome, Periodontal Attachment Loss
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
