Context: Platelet-rich-plasma (PRP) and Platelet-rich-fibrin (PRF) are extensively used autologous platelet concentrates in periodontal regeneration, and PRF has a better efficacy as compared to PRP. The rationale for this difference has often been attributed to the difference in the structure of the fibrin matrix. However, the effect of concentration of platelets on the regenerative potential of these concentrates is obscure. Aims: The study was conducted to evaluate and compare, clinically and radiographically, the efficacy of PRF and PRP in the treatment of periodontal endosseous defects and to assess the effect of platelet concentration on periodontal regeneration. Materials and Methods: Twenty intrabony defects were selected and divided into two groups randomly by the coin toss method. Group I received PRP and Group II subjects were treated with PRF. The platelet counts in PRP and PRF were analyzed. Clinical and radiological parameters were assessed at baseline and 3, 6, and 9 months postoperatively. Statistical Analysis: Kruskal–Wallis Chi-square test, Wilcoxon signed rank test, t-test, and Spearman's rank correlation were used for statistical analysis of data. Results: There was statistically significant improvement in all the parameters in the two groups except in relation to gingival recession. There was a statistically significant difference between the platelet count in Group I and Group II (P = 0.002). Conclusion: PRP and PRF appear to have nearly comparable effects in terms of periodontal regeneration. The concentration of platelets appears to play a paradoxical role in regeneration. The regenerative potential of platelets appears to be optimal within a limited range.

Objectives: Probiotics are promising adjuncts to non‐surgical periodontal therapy (scaling and root planing (SRP)) for managing gingival and periodontal diseases. Probiotics are considered alternatives to antibiotics, especially with the emergence of antimicrobial resistance. Hence, the present systematic review aims to generate evidence on the role of probiotics compared to antimicrobial agents for managing periodontal diseases (gingivitis and periodontitis).Method: Six electronic databases (PubMed, SCOPUS, Web of Science, EBSCO, Cochrane, Clinical Trial Registry) were searched to collect studies comparing the effect of probiotics with antibiotics for periodontal disease. In total, 5530 articles were retrieved from all databases, of which 1891 were included for title and abstract screening. After screening, a total of ten clinical studies were included for data extraction and analysis. Probing pocket depth (PPD), Clinical attachment loss (CAL), bleeding on probing (BOP), plaque index (PI), gingival index (GI), and microbial profile were recorded.Results: Probiotics showed a significant reduction in the PPD and CAL compared to antibiotics. Antibiotics were more effective in reducing the PI and GI. A combination of probiotics and antibiotics superior compared to probiotics and antibiotics alone.Conclusion: Probiotics can be used as an alternative to antibiotics, however, a combination is more effective for managing periodontal disease.

The oral microbiome, populated by a diverse range of species, plays a critical role in the initiation and progression of periodontal disease. The most dominant yet little-discussed players in the microbiome, the bacteriophages, influence the health and disease of the host in various ways. They, not only contribute to periodontal health by preventing the colonization of pathogens and disrupting biofilms but also play a role in periodontal disease by upregulating the virulence of periodontal pathogens through the transfer of antibiotic resistance and virulence factors. Since bacteriophages selectively infect only bacterial cells, they have an enormous scope to be used as a therapeutic strategy; recently, phage therapy has been successfully used to treat antibiotic-resistant systemic infections. Their ability to disrupt biofilms widens the scope against periodontal pathogens and dental plaque biofilms in periodontitis. Future research focussing on the oral phageome and phage therapy’s effectiveness and safety could pave way for new avenues in periodontal therapy. This review explores our current understanding of bacteriophages, their interactions in the oral microbiome, and their therapeutic potential in periodontal disease.

Periodontal disease (PD) is an immune-inflammatory disease affecting the supporting structures of the teeth, which results in progressive destruction of the hard and soft tissues surrounding teeth, ultimately resulting in tooth loss. The primary etiological factor for this disease is the presence of pathogenic microorganisms. Pathogenic bacteria face antagonistic conditions and foreign DNA components during the infection stage and depend on defense mechanisms such as clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats (CRISPR)-Cas to counter them. Virulence genes regulated by the CRISPR-Cas system are often expressed by bacteria as part of the stress response to the presence of stress conditions and foreign elements. There is ever-growing evidence regarding the role of CRISPR-Cas in virulence of periodontal pathogens. The same CRISPR-Cas system may also be targeted to reduce bacterial virulence and it may also be utilized to develop diagnostic and therapeutic strategies for prevention and control of PD progression. This review article describes the CRISPR-Cas systems in the periodontal dysbiotic microbial communities, their role in the virulence of periodontal pathogens, and their potential role in understanding the pathogenesis of periodontitis and treatment of PD.

The link between periodontal disease and noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) has been the subject of major research over the past several years. The primary objective of this review is to understand the cellular and molecular components that link common risk factors (exposure) in adult patients (population) with periodontal disease and other NCDs (outcome). The secondary objective is to interpret from existing literature the possibility of identifying the molecular plausibility of the Common Risk Factor Approach (CRFA). A literature search was performed in PubMed/MEDLINE, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Google Scholar for all published articles pertaining to the molecular and cellular basis of the risk factors between periodontal diseases and major NCDs. Data from all randomized and nonrandomized clinical trials, cross-sectional studies, case-control, cohort studies, literature, and systematic reviews were included. Periodontal pathogens, stress, obesity, smoking, and dietary factors are some of the common risk factors between periodontal disease and NCDs. Understanding the molecular and cellular link of common risk factors between NCDs and periodontal disease would ensure the application of CRFA. The CRFA implies that controlling the risk factors associated with NCDs can have an incredible positive impact on regulating many chronic conditions, which would extend to periodontal health also.