Home | About us | Editorial board | Search | Ahead of print | Current issue | Archives | Submit article | Instructions| Reviewers

Login 
  Home Print this page Email this page Small font sizeDefault font sizeIncrease font size Users Online: 8644    
     


 
Table of Contents   
ORIGINAL ARTICLES
Year : 2021  |  Volume : 11  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 421-427
Efficacy of xanthan-based chlorhexidine gel on the levels of Interleukin-1β in chronic periodontitis: An interventional study


1 Consultant periodontist, Kerala, India
2 Department of Periodontics, A B Shetty Memorial Institute of Dental Sciences, Nitte (Deemed to be University), Karnataka, India
3 Department of Periodontology, Manipal College of Dental Sciences, Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Karnataka, India

Date of Submission06-Mar-2021
Date of Decision31-Mar-2021
Date of Acceptance30-Apr-2021
Date of Web Publication30-Jul-2021

Correspondence Address:
Dr. Amitha Ramesh
Department of Periodontics, A.B. Shetty Memorial institute of Dental Sciences, Nitte (Deemed to be University), Deralakatte, Mangalore, Karnataka.
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/jispcd.JISPCD_74_21

Rights and Permissions

   Abstract 

Aims and Objectives: Xanthan-based chlorhexidine gel (Chlosite®) is a local drug delivery system that exposes the sub-gingival bacteria to the effects of chlorhexidine (CHX) for a prolonged time. Hence, the study aimed at evaluating the clinical efficacy of the subgingival application of Chlosite gel as an adjunctive to mechanical scaling and root planing (SRP) and at evaluating the salivary interleukin (IL)-1β level to substantiate the clinical efficacy of xanthan-based CHX gel. Materials and Methods: A total number of 40 patients with chronic periodontitis in the age group of 30–50 years were enrolled in this interventional study. The patients were assigned to group A, in which only SRP was done, and group B, in which SRP along with the subgingival application of Chlosite gel was done. Periodontal parameters and salivary IL-1β level were evaluated, and the data obtained were statistically analyzed by using paired and unpaired “t” tests. Results: The results obtained showed a statistically significant reduction in the mean gingival index (GI), probing pocket depth (PPD), clinical attachment level (CAL), and salivary IL-1β values in both the groups from baseline to 30 days. There was a statistically significant reduction in GI, in group B when compared with group A, after the treatment. Salivary IL-1β value in group B was slightly lower when compared with group A after the treatment, but it was not statistically significant. Conclusions: The xanthan-based CHX gel is therapeutically effective when used as an adjunct to SRP. The study also indicated that salivary IL-1β can be used as a reliable biomarker.


Keywords: Chlorhexidine, interleukin-1β, periodontitis, xanthan


How to cite this article:
Sajna H R, Ramesh A, Kedlaya MN, Thomas B. Efficacy of xanthan-based chlorhexidine gel on the levels of Interleukin-1β in chronic periodontitis: An interventional study. J Int Soc Prevent Communit Dent 2021;11:421-7

How to cite this URL:
Sajna H R, Ramesh A, Kedlaya MN, Thomas B. Efficacy of xanthan-based chlorhexidine gel on the levels of Interleukin-1β in chronic periodontitis: An interventional study. J Int Soc Prevent Communit Dent [serial online] 2021 [cited 2021 Oct 23];11:421-7. Available from: https://www.jispcd.org/text.asp?2021/11/4/421/322664



   Introduction Top


In 1979, Goodson et al. introduced the concept of local drug delivery for periodontal therapy, which is based on the notion that locally delivered anti-microbial drugs can reach the base of the periodontal pocket and can be maintained for a prolonged period.[1] The common antimicrobials used for local drug delivery include tetracycline, doxycycline, minocycline, and CHX.[2] Various drug delivery vehicles include gels, films, chips, varnish, fibers, injectable systems, etc.[3]

CHX is considered as the gold standard antiplaque agent against which the efficacy of other antiplaque agents is measured because of its antimicrobial activity, substantivity, and nontoxic properties.[4],[5] Xanthan-based chlorhexidine (Chlosite®) is an injectable gel formulation of CHX that is a distinctive combination of CHX digluconate (0.5%) and CHX dihydrochloride (1%) in a 1:2 ratio and 0.5% xanthan gel.[6] Xanthan gum, when in contact with water, forms a 3D pseudoreticulum; it has a prolonged adhesion time and is stable over a wide range of pH and temperature.[7] Hence, it is not easily washed away by the flushing action of gingival crevicular fluid or saliva.[8] It dissolves in 10–30 days on application into the periodontal pocket, which helps in maintaining the therapeutic concentration for at least 15 days.[9]

IL-1, also called osteoclast activating factor, is a potent pro-inflammatory cytokine that is synthesized by various cell types, including fibroblasts, macrophages, and monocytes.[10] Various studies concluded that the mean levels of salivary IL-1β were higher in patients with periodontitis when compared with healthy individuals.[1],[11],[12] Hence, salivary IL-1β can be used as a reliable candidate biomarker for periodontitis.

Numerous studies have been conducted to evaluate the efficacy of CHX, but there is scanty literature that shows the efficacy of CHX on the levels of IL-1β. Therefore, the present study was designed to evaluate the efficacy of the subgingival application of xanthan-based chlorhexidine (Chlosite®) as an adjunct to SRP in the management of chronic periodontitis. The levels of IL-1β were also compared along with the periodontal status of the individuals.


   Subjects and Methods Top


A total of 40 subjects were selected for the study. Written informed consent was obtained from all the participants before the start of the study. The study was approved by the Central Ethics Committee of the Institution.

Study sample

  • The study design comprised 40 subjects, divided into two equal groups.


  • Group A: Patients with chronic periodontitis treated by SRP alone.


  • Group B: Patients with chronic periodontitis treated by xanthan-based chlorhexidine gel (Chlosite®) subgingivally adjunctive to SRP.


  • Criteria for selection

    Inclusion criteria were patients with:

  • Moderate to severe periodontitis with clinical attachment loss of ≥3 mm.


  • (1999 International Workshop for a classification of Periodontal Diseases and Conditions),

  • A minimum of three teeth with PPD ≥4 mm and that bled easily on initial visit in patients suffering from chronic periodontitis.


  • Age group between 30 and 50 years,


  • Systemically healthy,


  • A minimum of 20 complements of teeth,


  • Not allergic to CHX (group B),


  • A GI score of 1.1 to 3.0


  • Exclusion criteria were patients with:

  • A history of anti-inflammatory or antimicrobial therapy for the past three months,


  • History of any systemic disease or conditions,


  • Pregnant or lactating women,


  • Chronic smokers,


  • Aggressive periodontitis,


  • History of periodontal treatment in the past six months.


  • Screening and clinical procedure

    A case proforma consisting of patients’ names, age, gender, dental history, and periodontal parameters, such as GI, PPD, CAL, was used to record the findings at baseline and after one month.

    Acrylic stents with the cold cure acrylic material were prepared over the occlusal one-third on the dental stone cast models made by the upper and lower arches’ alginate impression. The GI, PPD, and CAL were measured at baseline and after one month of the treatment [Figure 1].
    Figure 1: PPD measurement using Williams graduated periodontal probe

    Click here to view


    Saliva samples were collected from group A and group B. Scaling was performed by using ultrasonic scalers (Woodpecker, China) to remove the supragingival plaque. Root planing was carried out in all sites having periodontal pockets by using Gracey curettes in both groups. A patch test was done in group B patients to rule out any allergic reactions to CHX. In group B patients, after SRP, xanthan-based chlorhexidine gel (Chlosite®) was placed subgingivally to the base of the pockets by using the blunt syringe provided along with the gel [Figure 2]. The patients were asked not to rinse their mouths for 30min after the placement of Chlosite®. They were advised to report back immediately if they felt any discomfort after the subgingival placement of the medicament. Patients in both groups were instructed to refrain from the usage of any sort of chemical plaque control measures except for regular toothbrushing and rinsing. Oral hygiene instructions were given to all patients. The patients were recalled after one month for follow-up. All the parameters were rechecked, and the saliva samples were collected for reevaluation.
    Figure 2: Placement of xanthan-based chlorhexidine gel

    Click here to view


    Method of collection of salivary samples

    Whole saliva was collected by the unstimulated passive drool method. Participants were instructed not to eat, drink, and chew gum for at least 30min before sampling. The sample collection was done between 9 am and 11 am. They were asked to rinse the mouth before the start of the saliva collection and were advised to tilt their head forward and drool down their saliva to the saliva collection aid.[13] The process was repeated as necessary until a sufficient quantity of samples was collected. The collected saliva samples were immediately sent to the Central Research Laboratory, where they were stored at −20°C. The samples were later on centrifuged at 3000rpm for 20min, and the supernatant saliva was collected to measure salivary IL-1β levels.

    Assessment of salivary IL-1β

    Diaclone human IL-1β ELISA KIT was used to estimate the level of salivary IL-1β. The salivary IL-1β kit is a competitive immunoassay that is specifically designed and validated for the quantitative measurement of salivary IL-1β.[14]

    Statistical analysis

    Descriptive statistics (mean and standard deviation) were calculated for continuous variables. The paired t-test was used to compare the mean values at baseline and after treatment within the groups. The unpaired t-test was used to calculate mean values between group A and group B; P < 0.05 was considered statistically significant. IBM SPSS (Version 22.0) software was used for statistical analysis.


       Results Top


    In group A, the mean GI was 2.17 ± 0.48 at baseline compared with 1.24 ± 0.28 after treatment. The mean PPD was 4.82 ± 0.66 at baseline compared with 3.40 ± 0.66 one month after treatment. The mean CAL was 5.74 ± 0.77 at baseline compared with 4.91 ± 0.78 after treatment. All the periodontal parameters differed significantly with P-value <0.001 [Table 1].
    Table 1: Comparison of GI, PPD, and CAL before and after treatment in group A

    Click here to view


    In group B, the mean GI was 2.03 ± 0.46 at baseline compared with 1.00 ± 0.33 after treatment. The mean PPD was 5.06 ± 0.64 at baseline when compared with 3.07 ± 0.61 after treatment. The mean CAL was 6.18 ± 0.67 at baseline when compared with 4.86 ± 0.69 after treatment. All the periodontal parameters differed significantly with P-value <0.001 [Table 2].
    Table 2: Comparison of GI, PPD, and CAL before and after treatment in group B

    Click here to view


    In group A, the mean salivary IL-1β was 129.08 ± 45.25 at baseline when compared with 90.27 ± 32.43 after the treatment and it differed significantly (P < 0.001) [Table 3]. In group B, the mean salivary IL-1β was 131.74 ± 45.08 at baseline when compared with 84.21 ± 37.30 after the treatment and it differed significantly (P < 0.001) [Table 4].
    Table 3: Comparison of salivary IL-1β (pg/mL) before and after treatment in group A

    Click here to view
    Table 4: Comparison of salivary IL-1β (pg/mL) before and after treatment in group B

    Click here to view


    The mean GI after treatment differed significantly between group A and group B (P = 0.015) when compared with baseline. The mean PPD and mean CAL after the treatment did not differ significantly (P > 0.05) between group A and group B when compared with baseline [Table 5] and [Table 6].
    Table 5: Comparison of GI, PPD, and CAL at baseline between group A and group B

    Click here to view
    Table 6: Comparison of GI, PPD, and CAL after treatment between group A and group B

    Click here to view


    In group A, the mean salivary IL-1β was 90.27 ± 32.43 after the treatment, whereas in group B, it was 84.21 ± 37.30; however, it was not statistically significant (P = 0.587) [Table 7] and [Table 8].
    Table 7: Comparison of salivary IL-1β (pg/mL) at baseline between group A and group B

    Click here to view
    Table 8: Comparison of salivary IL-1β (pg/mL) after treatment between group A and group B

    Click here to view



       Discussion Top


    The present study results showed a statistically significant reduction in the mean GI, PPD, CAL, and salivary interleukin-1β values in both the groups from baseline to 30 days. There was a statistically significant reduction in GI in group B when compared with group A, after the treatment. Salivary IL-1β value in group B was slightly lower when compared with group A after the treatment, but it was not statistically significant.

    In the present study, there was a significant reduction in the mean GI in both the groups after the treatment, when compared with the baseline values. This reduction in the GI might be due to the meticulous oral hygiene practice of the patient and the effects of extensive SRP. A similar result was reported by Stabholz et al., Gupta et al., and Verma et al. in their study.[15],[16],[17] Also, when the intergroup comparison was done, a statistically significant reduction in the mean GI was found in group B than in group A. This statistical significance of GI in group B might be due to the antiplaque effects of CHX that might have leaked into the oral cavity from the treated subgingival sites. In their study, Soskolne et al.[18] also observed a significant decrease in GI score in SRP with CHX-treated sites when compared with the SRP sites alone. Similarly, in their study, He et al.[19] found a significant reduction of GI in the SRP combined with the CHX chip compared with the SRP alone.

    The PPD measurement is an important diagnostic tool that is used to evaluate the periodontal status of an individual. The present study showed a statistically significant reduction in PPD from baseline to after the treatment in both groups. This is in accordance with the study conducted by Rusu et al.[7] and Gupta et al.[16] When compared between group A and group B, PPD values showed no statistical significance. This finding was similar to the study conducted by Oosterwaal et al.,[20] which measured the effects of 2% CHX gel along with SRP and concluded that when compared with SRP alone the PPD values showed no significant difference when 2% CHX gel was used. Even though the study showed a statistically significant reduction in PPD from baseline to after treatment within the group, the intergroup comparison showed a nonsignificant result. The reason for this lack of significance might be due to the smaller sample size and shorter follow-up interval in this study, which might have yielded only a slightly higher reduction in PPD values in group B. The earlier results contradict the findings of a multicenter study by Paolantonio et al.[21] on xanthan-based chlorhexidine gel (Chlosite®), using a larger sample size, which reported a significant reduction in PPD after using xanthan-based chlorhexidine along with SRP when compared with SRP alone. A weighted mean difference (WMD) of 0.56 mm in PPD reduction and 0.53 mm CAL gain was seen in a review on the use of xanthan-based chlorhexidine gel (Chlosite®) as an adjunctive agent for nonsurgical treatment of periodontitis.[22] A recent systematic review by Zhao et al. concluded that adjunctive placement of xanthan-based chlorhexidine gel (Chlosite®) at individual sites provided slight benefit in PPD reduction when compared with nonsurgical periodontal therapy (NSPT) alone.[23]

    The CAL is considered the most reliable measurement in evaluating periodontitis. The CAL in both groups showed a statistically significant reduction from baseline to after treatment. A similar reduction in both the groups that were treated by SRP alone and SRP with the CHX chip was observed by Mızrak et al.[24] When CAL was compared between group A and group B, it showed no significant difference after the treatment from baseline. Similarly, Unsal et al.[25] found that, when compared with the periodontal sites treated with SRP alone, CAL gain was less in sites treated with SRP and 1% CHX sub-gingival gel administration.

    Katrin et al. stated that saliva is an effective local source for examining cytokines; it influences periodontal health and has numerous benefits over the gingival crevicular fluid.[26] In the present study, the mean salivary IL-1β was higher at baseline compared with after treatment in both the groups and it reduced significantly. This result was similar to the study done by Konopka et al.[27] The mean salivary IL-1β after treatment in group B was slightly lesser than the values in group A, but it was not statistically significant. It could be inferred that a slight reduction in IL-1β level could be obtained by the use of xanthan-based chlorhexidine gel (Chlosite®) along with SRP when compared with SRP alone. IL-1β is considered a major proinflammatory cytokine that mainly targets the adaptive host immune response, stimulates bone resorption, and results in tooth loss.[28] A study that evaluated the inflammatory response to chlorhexidine remarked that locally applied antimicrobials can reduce interleukin responses and have a marked anti-inflammatory effect on periodontal disease activity.[29]

    The smaller sample size and short duration of the study limit the generalizability of the study. The study would have yielded better significant results if conducted in a larger sample size with long-term follow-up periods. There were variable factors that would have impacted the results, such as the non-standardization of the PPD and age of the patients. The microbiological response of the subgingival flora should have been done simultaneously to validate the efficacy of Chlosite.


       Conclusion Top


    Within the limitations of the study, the clinical improvements showed that subgingival xanthan-based chlorhexidine gel (Chlosite®) is therapeutically effective when used as an adjunct to SRP. The observations were supported by the clinical parameters and the biochemical outcomes obtained after the treatment.

    Acknowledgment

    The authors would like to thank all those who contributed their precious time while completing this study.

    Financial support and sponsorship

    Nil.

    Conflicts of interest

    There are no conflicts of interest.

    Authors’ contributions

    All authors had contributed to study conception, design, data acquisition, analysis, and article writing. All authors have read and approved the article.

    Ethical policy and institutional review board statement

    The study was conducted on the patients reporting to the outpatient department of A.B. Shetty Institute of Dental Sciences, Nitte (Deemed to be University) hence ethical clearance was obtained from the institution ethical board.

    Patient declaration of consent

    The authors certify that they have obtained all appropriate patient consent forms. In the form, the patient(s) has/have given his/her/their consent for his/her/their images and other clinical information to be reported in the journal. The patients understand that their names and initials will not be published and due efforts will be made to conceal their identity, but anonymity cannot be guaranteed.

    Data availability statement

    Data will be available on request from authors.

     
       References Top

    1.
    Kaushik R, Yeltiwar RK, Pushpanshu K. Salivary interleukin-1β levels in patients with chronic periodontitis before and after periodontal phase I therapy and healthy controls: A case-control study. J Periodontol 2011;82:1353-9.  Back to cited text no. 1
        
    2.
    Greenstein G, Polson A. The role of local drug delivery in the management of periodontal diseases: A comprehensive review. J Periodontol 1998;69:507-20.  Back to cited text no. 2
        
    3.
    Ramanauskaite E, Machiulskiene V. Antiseptics as adjuncts to scaling and root planing in the treatment of periodontitis: A systematic literature review. BMC Oral Health 2020;20:143.  Back to cited text no. 3
        
    4.
    Jones CG. Chlorhexidine: Is it still the gold standard? Periodontol 2000 1997;15:55-62.  Back to cited text no. 4
        
    5.
    Jassoma E, Baeesa L, Sabbagh H. The antiplaque/anticariogenic efficacy of Salvadora persica (Miswak) mouthrinse in comparison to that of chlorhexidine: A systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Oral Health 2019;19:64.  Back to cited text no. 5
        
    6.
    Baehni PC, Takeuchi Y. Anti-plaque agents in the prevention of biofilm-associated oral diseases. Oral Dis 2003;9(Suppl 1):23-9.  Back to cited text no. 6
        
    7.
    Rusu D, Benta A, Necker A. Non-surgical periodontal therapy using a novel chlorhexidine based xanthan gel; A split mouth study. Int Poster J Dent Oral Med2005;7:286-91.  Back to cited text no. 7
        
    8.
    Sholapurkar A, Sharma D, Glass B, Miller C, Nimmo A, Jennings E. Professionally delivered local antimicrobials in the treatment of patients with periodontitis—A narrative review. Dentistry J2020. doi:10.3390/dj9010002  Back to cited text no. 8
        
    9.
    H R R, Dhamecha D, Jagwani S, Rao M, Jadhav K, Shaikh S, et al. Local drug delivery systems in the management of periodontitis: A scientific review. J Control Release 2019;307:393-409.  Back to cited text no. 9
        
    10.
    Cheng R, Wu Z, Li M, Shao M, Hu T. Interleukin-1β is a potential therapeutic target for periodontitis: A narrative review. Int J Oral Sci 2020;12:2.  Back to cited text no. 10
        
    11.
    Vahabi S, Yadegari Z, Pournaghi S. The comparison of the salivary concentration of interleukin-17 and interleukin-18 in patients with chronic periodontitis and healthy individuals. Dent Res J (Isfahan) 2020;17:280-6.  Back to cited text no. 11
        
    12.
    Teles RP, Likhari V, Socransky SS, Haffajee AD. Salivary cytokine levels in subjects with chronic periodontitis and in periodontally healthy individuals: A cross-sectional study. J Periodontal Res 2009;44:411-7.  Back to cited text no. 12
        
    13.
    Bhattarai KR, Kim HR, Chae HJ. Compliance with saliva collection protocol in healthy volunteers: Strategies for managing risk and errors. Int J Med Sci 2018;15:823-31.  Back to cited text no. 13
        
    14.
    Hang CH, Shi JX, Li JS, Li WQ, Wu W. Expressions of intestinal NF-kappab, TNF-alpha, and IL-6 following traumatic brain injury in rats. J Surg Res 2005;123:188-93.  Back to cited text no. 14
        
    15.
    Stabholz A, Sela MN, Friedman M, Golomb G, Soskolne A. Clinical and microbiological effects of sustained release chlorhexidine in periodontal pockets. J Clin Periodontol 1986;13:783-8.  Back to cited text no. 15
        
    16.
    Gupta R, Pandit N, Aggarwal S, Verma A. Comparative evaluation of subgingivally delivered 10% doxycycline hyclate and xanthan-based chlorhexidine gels in the treatment of chronic periodontitis. J Contemp Dent Pract 2008;9:25-32.  Back to cited text no. 16
        
    17.
    Verma A, Sanghi S, Grover D, Aggarwal S, Gupta R, Pandit N. Effect of insertion of xanthan-based chlorhexidine gel in the maintenance phase following the treatment of chronic periodontitis. J Indian Soc Periodontol 2012;16:381-5.  Back to cited text no. 17
    [PUBMED]  [Full text]  
    18.
    Soskolne WA, Heasman PA, Stabholz A, Smart GJ, Palmer M, Flashner M, et al. Sustained local delivery of chlorhexidine in the treatment of periodontitis: A multi-center study. J Periodontol 1997;68:32-8.  Back to cited text no. 18
        
    19.
    He L, Geng S, Cao C. [The efficacy of the chlorhexidine chip following scaling and root planing (SRP) and compared to SRP alone]. Zhonghua Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi 2001;36:443-5.  Back to cited text no. 19
        
    20.
    Oosterwaal PJ, Mikx FH, van ‘t Hof MA, Renggli HH. Comparison of the antimicrobial effect of the application of chlorhexidine gel, amine fluoride gel and stannous fluoride gel in debrided periodontal pockets. J Clin Periodontol 1991;18:245-51.  Back to cited text no. 20
        
    21.
    Paolantonio M, Perinetti G, Dolci M, Perfetti G, Tetè S, Sammartino G, et al. Surgical treatment of periodontal intrabony defects with calcium sulfate implant and barrier versus collagen barrier or open flap debridement alone: A 12-month randomized controlled clinical trial. J Periodontol 2008;79:1886-93.  Back to cited text no. 21
        
    22.
    Tan OL, Safii SH, Razali M. Commercial local pharmacotherapeutics and adjunctive agents for nonsurgical treatment of periodontitis: A contemporary review of clinical efficacies and challenges. Antibiotics2019. doi:10.3390/antibiotics9010011  Back to cited text no. 22
        
    23.
    Zhao H, Hu J, Zhao L. Adjunctive subgingival application of Chlorhexidine gel in nonsurgical periodontal treatment for chronic periodontitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Oral Health 2020;20:34.  Back to cited text no. 23
        
    24.
    Mızrak T, Güncü GN, Çaǧlayan F, Balcı TA, Aktar GS, İpek F. Effect of a controlled-release chlorhexidine chip on clinical and microbiological parameters and prostaglandin E 2 levels in gingival crevicular fluid. J Periodontol 2006;77:437-43.  Back to cited text no. 24
        
    25.
    Unsal E, Akkaya M, Walsh TF. Influence of a single application of subgingival chlorhexidine gel or tetracycline paste on the clinical parameters of adult periodontitis patients. J Clin Periodontol 1994;21:351-5.  Back to cited text no. 25
        
    26.
    Hanes PJ, Purvis JP. Local anti-infective therapy: Pharmacological agents. A systematic review. Ann Periodontol 2003;8:79-98.  Back to cited text no. 26
        
    27.
    Konopka, Pietrzak A, Brzezińska-Błaszczyk E. Effect of scaling and root planing on interleukin-1β, interleukin-8 and MMP-8 levels in gingival crevicular fluid from chronic periodontitis patients. J Periodontal Res2012;47:681-8. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0765.2012.01480.x  Back to cited text no. 27
        
    28.
    Hajishengallis G, Korostoff JM. Revisiting the Page & Schroeder model: The good, the bad and the unknowns in the periodontal host response 40 years later. Periodontology 2000 2017;75:116-51.  Back to cited text no. 28
        
    29.
    Houri-Haddad Y, Halabi A, Soskolne WA. Inflammatory response to chlorhexidine, minocycline HCl and doxycycline HCl in an in vivo mouse model. J Clin Periodontol 2008;35:783-8.  Back to cited text no. 29
        


        Figures

      [Figure 1], [Figure 2]
     
     
        Tables

      [Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3], [Table 4], [Table 5], [Table 6], [Table 7], [Table 8]



     

    Top
    Print this article  Email this article
     
      Search
     
      
        Similar in PUBMED
       Search Pubmed for
       Search in Google Scholar for
     Related articles
        Article in PDF (614 KB)
        Citation Manager
        Access Statistics
        Reader Comments
        Email Alert *
        Add to My List *
    * Registration required (free)  


        Abstract
       Introduction
       Subjects and Methods
       Results
       Discussion
       Conclusion
        References
        Article Figures
        Article Tables

     Article Access Statistics
        Viewed215    
        Printed0    
        Emailed0    
        PDF Downloaded37    
        Comments [Add]    

    Recommend this journal