SynthesisFrontiers in cellular and infection microbiology2025
Antibiotics in periodontal treatment: an umbrella review.
Synthesis in Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The long-term efficacy of tetracycline class antimicrobials as local adjuncts in the treatment of chronic periodontitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in dental medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Application of injectable hydrogels in the treatment of periodontitis.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: Antimicrobial stewardship envisions the appropriate use of antimicrobials, including antibiotics. Antibiotic therapy in Periodontology has been widely investigated over the years. This umbrella review aimed to appraise the methodological quality and meta-analytical strength and validity of the evidence of systematic reviews (SRs) on systemic and local antibiotics in periodontal therapy. Material and methods: After registration of the protocol (PROSPERO CRD42024527222), an extensive search, up to March 2024, for SRs that have assessed the effect of antibiotics in periodontal therapy, either nonsurgical and surgical, regardless of the types of patients and type of antibiotic. The methodological quality of SRs was judged using A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews 2. Fail-safe number of Rosenberg explored the number of nonsignificant, unpublished, or missing studies that would be required to change the direction of that evidence. Results: Forty-four SRs, consisting of 221 meta-analyses, were included. The overall methodological quality was low, with only four and two SRs of high or moderate quality, respectively. Out of 221 meta-analyses, 69 indicated that the effect of systemic or local antibiotics was statistically not significant. Twenty-nine meta-analyses from suggestive-to-strong strength from one high and three low methodological quality SRs indicated that the systemic or local antibiotics had a beneficial, statistically significant effect on periodontal health parameters, such as average clinical attachment loss, bleeding on probing or percentage of pocket closure. Of those, four strong evidence meta-analyses from a low-quality systematic review indicated significant and meta-analytically robust but with negligible effect. About 65.5% of the meta-analyses with suggestive to strong evidence are unlikely to change with more future studies. Conclusion: There is no robust evidence to support the use of antibiotics for periodontal management. Systemic antibiotics have a minimal effect on periodontitis and additional studies are unlikely to change the level of evidence.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.