-
Journal of Parkinson's Disease 2023Multiple observational studies have yielded controversial results regarding the association between Parkinson's disease (PD) and periodontitis. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Multiple observational studies have yielded controversial results regarding the association between Parkinson's disease (PD) and periodontitis.
OBJECTIVE
This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to ascertain their bidirectional relationship.
METHODS
A literature search for relevant studies was performed in PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases from inception to December 19, 2022. Effect sizes (ES) with 95% confidence intervals were pooled under the random-effects model. Then, leave-one-out sensitivity analysis and contour-enhanced funnel plot were applied to assess the stability of the results.
RESULTS
A total of 34 studies and 24 studies were included for systematic review and quantitative meta-analysis, respectively. Pooled ES indicated that periodontitis was not significantly associated with PD risk (HR = 1.13, 95% CI 0.88-1.45, n = 3; OR = 1.94, 95% CI 0.55-6.90, n = 7), while the Mendelian randomization study revealed no association between PD and periodontitis risk (coefficient [B] = -0.0001, standard error = 0.0001, p = 0.19). Furthermore, PD patients exhibited higher levels of periodontal pocket depth (SMD = 1.10, 95% CI 0.53-1.67), clinical attachment level (SMD = 1.40, 95% CI 0.55-2.26), plaque index (SMD = 0.81, 95% CI 0.22-1.39), and Oral Health Impact Profile-14 score (SMD = 0.91, 95% CI 0.33-1.49) compared to healthy controls.
CONCLUSIONS
Our meta-analysis identified no bidirectional association between PD risk and periodontitis risk, though the prevalence of periodontitis and poorer oral status was higher in PD patients.
Topics: Humans; Parkinson Disease; Periodontitis; Prevalence
PubMed: 37899063
DOI: 10.3233/JPD-230059 -
Frontiers in Endocrinology 2022A previous 2014 meta-analysis reported a positive association between obesity and periodontitis. It was considered necessary to update the recently published papers and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
A previous 2014 meta-analysis reported a positive association between obesity and periodontitis. It was considered necessary to update the recently published papers and to analyse subgroups on important clinical variables that could affect the association between obesity and periodontitis. Therefore, we updated the latest studies and attempted to derive more refined results.
METHODS
All observational studies were eligible for inclusion. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used to qualitatively evaluate the risk of bias. Subgroup analyses were conducted for patients aged 18-34, 35-54, and 55+ years and the countries (European countries, USA, Brazil, Japan, Korea, and other Asian countries).
RESULTS
Thirty-seven full-text articles were included. Obesity conferred increased odds of periodontal disease with an odds ratio (1.35, 95% CI: 1.05-1.75). In the subgroup analysis by age, the odds ratio was the highest in the 18-34 years group (2.21, 95% CI: 1.26-3.89). In the subgroup analysis by country, European countries had the highest odds ratio (2.46, 95% CI: 1.11-5.46).
CONCLUSION
Despite the differences in degree, a positive association between obesity and periodontitis was found regardless of country or age. Therefore, medical professionals should try to prevent periodontitis by controlling patient weights, and more studies should be conducted to determine the association between obesity and oral health.
SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD42022301343.
Topics: Humans; Adolescent; Young Adult; Adult; Periodontitis; Obesity; Odds Ratio; Body Weight; Brazil
PubMed: 36353241
DOI: 10.3389/fendo.2022.999455 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2020Systemic antimicrobials can be used as an adjunct to mechanical debridement (scaling and root planing (SRP)) as a non-surgical treatment approach to manage... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Systemic antimicrobials can be used as an adjunct to mechanical debridement (scaling and root planing (SRP)) as a non-surgical treatment approach to manage periodontitis. A range of antibiotics with different dosage and combinations are documented in the literature. The review follows the previous classification of periodontitis as all included studies used this classification.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of systemic antimicrobials as an adjunct to SRP for the non-surgical treatment of patients with periodontitis.
SEARCH METHODS
Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases to 9 March 2020: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase. The US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) which involved individuals with clinically diagnosed untreated periodontitis. Trials compared SRP with systemic antibiotics versus SRP alone/placebo, or with other systemic antibiotics.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We selected trials, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias in duplicate. We estimated mean differences (MDs) for continuous data, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the certainty of the evidence using GRADE.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 45 trials conducted worldwide involving 2664 adult participants. 14 studies were at low, 8 at high, and the remaining 23 at unclear overall risk of bias. Seven trials did not contribute data to the analysis. We assessed the certainty of the evidence for the 10 comparisons which reported long-term follow-up (≥ 1 year). None of the studies reported data on antimicrobial resistance and patient-reported quality of life changes. Amoxicillin + metronidazole + SRP versus SRP in chronic/aggressive periodontitis: the evidence for percentage of closed pockets (MD -16.20%, 95% CI -25.87 to -6.53; 1 study, 44 participants); clinical attachment level (CAL) (MD -0.47 mm, 95% CI -0.90 to -0.05; 2 studies, 389 participants); probing pocket depth (PD) (MD -0.30 mm, 95% CI -0.42 to -0.18; 2 studies, 389 participants); and percentage of bleeding on probing (BOP) (MD -8.06%, 95% CI -14.26 to -1.85; 2 studies, 389 participants) was of very low certainty. Only the results for closed pockets and BOP showed a minimally important clinical difference (MICD) favouring amoxicillin + metronidazole + SRP. Metronidazole + SRP versus SRP in chronic/aggressive periodontitis: the evidence for percentage of closed pockets (MD -12.20%, 95% CI -29.23 to 4.83; 1 study, 22 participants); CAL (MD -1.12 mm, 95% CI -2.24 to 0; 3 studies, 71 participants); PD (MD -1.11 mm, 95% CI -2.84 to 0.61; 2 studies, 47 participants); and percentage of BOP (MD -6.90%, 95% CI -22.10 to 8.30; 1 study, 22 participants) was of very low certainty. Only the results for CAL and PD showed an MICD favouring the MTZ + SRP group. Azithromycin + SRP versus SRP for chronic/aggressive periodontitis: we found no evidence of a difference in percentage of closed pockets (MD 2.50%, 95% CI -10.19 to 15.19; 1 study, 40 participants); CAL (MD -0.59 mm, 95% CI -1.27 to 0.08; 2 studies, 110 participants); PD (MD -0.77 mm, 95% CI -2.33 to 0.79; 2 studies, 110 participants); and percentage of BOP (MD -1.28%, 95% CI -4.32 to 1.76; 2 studies, 110 participants) (very low-certainty evidence for all outcomes). Amoxicillin + clavulanate + SRP versus SRP for chronic periodontitis: the evidence from 1 study, 21 participants for CAL (MD 0.10 mm, 95% CI -0.51 to 0.71); PD (MD 0.10 mm, 95% CI -0.17 to 0.37); and BOP (MD 0%, 95% CI -0.09 to 0.09) was of very low certainty and did not show a difference between the groups. Doxycycline + SRP versus SRP in aggressive periodontitis: the evidence from 1 study, 22 participants for CAL (MD -0.80 mm, 95% CI -1.49 to -0.11); and PD (MD -1.00 mm, 95% CI -1.78 to -0.22) was of very low certainty, with the doxycycline + SRP group showing an MICD in PD only. Tetracycline + SRP versus SRP for aggressive periodontitis: we found very low-certainty evidence of a difference in long-term improvement in CAL for the tetracycline group (MD -2.30 mm, 95% CI -2.50 to -2.10; 1 study, 26 participants). Clindamycin + SRP versus SRP in aggressive periodontitis: we found very low-certainty evidence from 1 study, 21 participants of a difference in long-term improvement in CAL (MD -1.70 mm, 95% CI -2.40 to -1.00); and PD (MD -1.80 mm, 95% CI -2.47 to -1.13) favouring clindamycin + SRP. Doxycycline + SRP versus metronidazole + SRP for aggressive periodontitis: there was very low-certainty evidence from 1 study, 27 participants of a difference in long-term CAL (MD 1.10 mm, 95% CI 0.36 to 1.84); and PD (MD 1.00 mm, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.70) favouring metronidazole + SRP. Clindamycin + SRP versus metronidazole + SRP for aggressive periodontitis: the evidence from 1 study, 26 participants for CAL (MD 0.20 mm, 95% CI -0.55 to 0.95); and PD (MD 0.20 mm, 95% CI -0.38 to 0.78) was of very low certainty and did not show a difference between the groups. Clindamycin + SRP versus doxycycline + SRP for aggressive periodontitis: the evidence from 1 study, 23 participants for CAL (MD -0.90 mm, 95% CI -1.62 to -0.18); and PD (MD -0.80 mm, 95% CI -1.58 to -0.02) was of very low certainty and did not show a difference between the groups. Most trials testing amoxicillin, metronidazole, and azithromycin reported adverse events such as nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea, mild gastrointestinal disturbances, and metallic taste. No serious adverse events were reported.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is very low-certainty evidence (for long-term follow-up) to inform clinicians and patients if adjunctive systemic antimicrobials are of any help for the non-surgical treatment of periodontitis. There is insufficient evidence to decide whether some antibiotics are better than others when used alongside SRP. None of the trials reported serious adverse events but patients should be made aware of the common adverse events related to these drugs. Well-planned RCTs need to be conducted clearly defining the minimally important clinical difference for the outcomes closed pockets, CAL, PD, and BOP.
Topics: Adult; Aggressive Periodontitis; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Bias; Chemotherapy, Adjuvant; Chronic Periodontitis; Confidence Intervals; Dental Prophylaxis; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 33197289
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012568.pub2 -
Oral Diseases Jan 2022The present study aimed to summarize and update the evidence regarding the association between periodontitis and psoriasis. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
The present study aimed to summarize and update the evidence regarding the association between periodontitis and psoriasis.
METHODS
The present systematic review was conducted under the guidelines of Transparent Reporting of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and was recorded in the PROSPERO database, under registration number CRD42017063799. Three databases (MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library) were searched up to March 2020. Case-control or cohort studies assessing the association between periodontitis and psoriasis were identified. Quantitative synthesis was conducted with meta-analysis.
RESULTS
A total of 13 studies (11 case-control and two cohort studies) assessing the association between periodontitis and psoriasis were included. Of these 13 articles, 9 showed the prevalence of periodontitis or psoriasis. Therefore, meta-analyses were conducted with data retrieved from the nine studies included. Pooled effect estimate for nine studies showed that patients with periodontitis associated with a higher risk of psoriasis with a pooled OR of 2.87 (95% CI, 1.75-4.69).
CONCLUSIONS
This systematic review demonstrated a positive association between periodontitis and psoriasis; however, a causal relationship cannot be established. Due to the weak evidence, caution should be taken when interpreting the results regarding periodontal parameters. Well-designed prospective studies are necessary to evaluate interactions between both diseases.
Topics: Case-Control Studies; Cohort Studies; Humans; Periodontitis; Prospective Studies; Psoriasis
PubMed: 32852860
DOI: 10.1111/odi.13617 -
Maternal and Child Health Journal Dec 2022A conflicting body of evidence suggests localized periodontal inflammation spreads systemically during pregnancy inducing adverse pregnancy outcomes. This systematic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
A conflicting body of evidence suggests localized periodontal inflammation spreads systemically during pregnancy inducing adverse pregnancy outcomes. This systematic review and meta-analysis aim to specifically evaluate the relationship between periodontitis and preeclampsia.
METHODS
Electronic searches were carried out in Medline, Pubmed, Embase, Lilacs, Cochrane Controlled Clinical Trial Register, CINAHL, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Google Scholar with no restrictions on the year of publication. We identified and selected observational case-control and cohort studies that analyzed the association between periodontal disease and preeclampsia. This meta-analysis was conducted following the PRISMA checklist and MOOSE checklist. Pooled odds ratios, mean difference, and 95% confidence intervals were calculated using the random effect model. Heterogeneity was tested with Cochran's Q statistic.
RESULTS
Thirty studies including six cohort- and twenty-four case-control studies were selected. Periodontitis was significantly associated with increased risk for preeclampsia (OR 3.18, 95% CI 2.26 - 4.48, p < 0.00001), especially in a subgroup analysis including cohort studies (OR 4.19, 95% CI 2.23 - 7.87, p < 0.00001). The association was even stronger in a subgroup analysis with lower-middle-income countries (OR 6.70, 95% CI 2.61 - 17.19, p < 0.0001).
CONCLUSIONS
Periodontitis appears as a significant risk factor for preeclampsia, which might be even more pronounced in lower-middle-income countries. Future studies to investigate if maternal amelioration of periodontitis prevents preeclampsia might be warranted.
Topics: Pregnancy; Female; Humans; Pre-Eclampsia; Periodontitis; Pregnancy Outcome; Periodontal Diseases; Odds Ratio
PubMed: 36209308
DOI: 10.1007/s10995-022-03556-6 -
Journal of Pharmacy & Bioallied Sciences Jul 2023Tobacco has been linked multiple times to many health implications. The relationship between periodontitis and tobacco was thoroughly investigated in this systemic...
INTRODUCTION
Tobacco has been linked multiple times to many health implications. The relationship between periodontitis and tobacco was thoroughly investigated in this systemic review to evaluate if tobacco specifically smoking impacts the progression of periodontal through impairing vascular and immunity mediators processes.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
The manual and electronic literature searches up to 2020 in the databanks of the EMBASE, MEDLINE, PUBMED, and SCOPUS were conducted. The search terms were "periodontitis," "periodontitis diseases," "smoking," "tobacco use," "tobacco," and "cigarette, pipe, and cigar." The types of studies included were restricted to the original studies and human trials. Analyses of subgroups and meta-regression were used to calculate the heterogeneity.
RESULTS
15 papers total were considered in the review, however only 14 of them provided information that could be used in the meta-analysis. Smoking raises the incidence of periodontitis by 85% according to pooled adjusted risk ratios (risk ratio 1.845, CI (95%) =1.5, 2.2). The results of a meta-regression analysis showed that age, follow-up intervals, periodontal disease, the severity of periodontitis, criteria used to determine periodontal status, and loss to follow-up accounted for 54.2%, 10.7%, 13.5%, and 2.1% of the variation in study results.
CONCLUSION
Smoking has an undesirable impact on periodontal incidence and development. Therefore, when taking the history of the patients at the initial visits the information about the habit of smoking has to be thoroughly noted.
PubMed: 37654319
DOI: 10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_516_22 -
Journal of Periodontal & Implant Science Feb 2021The pathology of peri-implantitis is still not fully understood and there have been recent challenges to the consensus on its aetiology and pathology, especially in... (Review)
Review
PURPOSE
The pathology of peri-implantitis is still not fully understood and there have been recent challenges to the consensus on its aetiology and pathology, especially in comparison with periodontitis. The assessment of biomarkers allows a comparison of the pathology of these diseases. The aim of this systematic review was to answer the research question: "Is there a difference in the biomarkers associated with peri-implantitis compared with periodontitis in adult humans?"
METHODS
Electronic databases were searched and screened, and a manual search was also undertaken. The inclusion criteria were adults with peri-implantitis who had been compared to adults with periodontitis with the outcome of biomarkers assessed via biopsies or crevicular fluid samples in primary or secondary care settings, as recorded in case-control, case series and retrospective, prospective and cross-sectional observational studies. Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts and assessed full text articles for eligibility and inclusion. Both reviewers independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias. Differences in biomarker levels were the primary outcome and a narrative review was undertaken due to the heterogeneity of studies.
RESULTS
In total, 2,374 articles were identified in the search, of which 111 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility and 13 were included in the qualitative synthesis. Five of the 13 included studies were deemed to be at high risk of bias, with the others having moderate risk. All studies were cross-sectional and performed at university hospitals. Nine of the 13 included studies found significant differences in the levels of biomarkers or their ratios between peri-implantitis and periodontitis. Four of the studies found no significant differences.
CONCLUSIONS
Within the limitations of the included studies, it appears that there may be a difference in biomarker levels and ratios between peri-implantitis and periodontitis, suggesting that these disease processes are somewhat distinct.
PubMed: 33634611
DOI: 10.5051/jpis.1902840142 -
BMC Oral Health Jun 2023There are differences in vitamin D levels between periodontitis and healthy individuals, but the effect of vitamin D on periodontitis is controversial. The purpose of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
There are differences in vitamin D levels between periodontitis and healthy individuals, but the effect of vitamin D on periodontitis is controversial. The purpose of this Meta-analysis is twofold: (1) compare vitamin D levels in individuals with or without periodontitis; (2) assess the effects of vitamin D supplementation during scaling and root planing (SRP) on periodontal clinical parameters in individuals with periodontitis.
METHODS
A systematic search was conducted in five databases (PubMed, Web of Science, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane library), published from the database inception to 12 September 2022. The Cochrane Collaboration Risk of bias (ROB) assessment tool, the risk of bias in non-randomized studies of intervention (ROBINS-I) tool, the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale (NOS), and Agency for Healthcare Quality and Research (AHRQ) were used to evaluate randomized controlled trial (RCT), non-RCT, case-control study, and cross-sectional study, respectively. Statistical analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3 and Stata 14.0 software, with weighted mean difference (WMD), standardized mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) as the effect measures, and heterogeneity was tested by subgroup analysis, sensitivity analysis, Meta-regression.
RESULTS
A total of 16 articles were included. The results of Meta-analysis showed that periodontitis was associated with lower serum vitamin D levels compared to normal population (SMD = -0.88, 95%CI -1.75 ~ -0.01, P = 0.048), while there was no significant difference in serum or saliva 25(OH)D levels between periodontitis and normal population. Additionally, the Meta-analysis showed that SRP + vitamin D and SRP alone had a statistically significant effect on serum vitamin D levels in individuals with periodontitis (SMD = 23.67, 95%CI 8.05 ~ 32.29, P = 0.003; SMD = 1.57, 95%CI 1.08 ~ 2.06, P < 0.01). And SRP + vitamin D could significantly reduce clinical attachment level compared to SRP alone (WMD = -0.13, 95%CI -0.19 ~ -0.06, P < 0.01), but had no meaningful effect on probing depth, gingival index, bleeding index, respectively.
CONCLUSION
The evidence from this Meta-analysis suggests that the serum vitamin D concentration of individuals with periodontitis is lower than that of normal people, and SRP along with vitamin D supplementation has been shown to play a significant role in improving periodontal clinical parameters. Therefore, vitamin D supplementation as an adjuvant to nonsurgical periodontal therapy has a positive impact on the prevention and treatment of periodontal disease in clinical practice.
Topics: Humans; Dental Scaling; Periodontal Diseases; Periodontitis; Root Planing; Vitamin D; Clinical Trials as Topic
PubMed: 37312090
DOI: 10.1186/s12903-023-03120-w -
Nutrients Oct 2022High free sugar intake is associated with an increased risk of various non-communicable diseases. We aimed to systematically review articles investigating the... (Review)
Review
High free sugar intake is associated with an increased risk of various non-communicable diseases. We aimed to systematically review articles investigating the association between free sugar intake and periodontal diseases. This systematic review was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines and was registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42022337828). We obtained articles from PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus in April 2022. The study selection was performed according to predefined eligibility criteria based on the following PECOS: (P) general population, (E/C) free-sugar-containing food/beverage intake, (O) clinically measured periodontal diseases, and (S) observational study and clinical trial. Of the 839 screened records, 13 studies were included in the review. Most studies (n = 12) had a cross-sectional design. The age groups in the included studies were children/adolescents (n = 5) and adults (n = 8). Among the included studies, 11 reported a significant association between the frequent intake of free-sugar-containing food or beverages and a higher prevalence or incidence of periodontal diseases. The quality of most of the included studies was scored "fair" based on the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale. Although the majority of the included studies reported a significant positive association between high free sugar intake and periodontal diseases, the evidence is considered to be limited due to the study designs.
Topics: Child; Adolescent; Adult; Humans; Cross-Sectional Studies; Beverages; Food; Periodontal Diseases; Sugars; Observational Studies as Topic
PubMed: 36364708
DOI: 10.3390/nu14214444 -
Frontiers in Public Health 2020Diabetic retinopathy is a common microvascular complication in diabetic patients and is considered the main cause of visual loss worldwide. Periodontitis is a chronic...
Diabetic retinopathy is a common microvascular complication in diabetic patients and is considered the main cause of visual loss worldwide. Periodontitis is a chronic inflammatory condition, which compromises dental supporting tissues. The chronic bacterial challenge in periodontitis is a persistent source of inflammatory mediators that may be associated with insulin resistance, increasing the risk of complications of diabetes mellitus. This systematic review aimed to summarize the evidence in the association between diabetic retinopathy and periodontitis. This review was registered under the number CRD 42019142267. A search strategy in five electronic databases and a gray literature source was performed based on the PECO acronym. After data extraction, the qualitative synthesis and risk of bias analyses were performed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. The level of evidence of all studies taken together was evaluated through the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. Out of the 253 citations screened, five cross-sectional studies met the eligibility criteria and were included in the qualitative analysis, in which two were judged to be of good quality, one as fair quality, and two as poor quality. Among the included studies, a significant relationship between the severity of periodontitis (CAL > 5 mm) and the severity of diabetic retinopathy ( < ) was reported by four studies. Also, an association between both diseases in non-obese adults was found after adjustments [OR 2.206 (1.114-4.366); = 0.0232). However, the analysis of evidence by GRADE assessment was rated as low. Although the results of individual studies suggest an association between diabetic retinopathy and periodontitis, the quality of the body of evidence was judged to be low by the GRADE approach. Further studies with larger sample sizes, adequate models of cofounders' adjustments, and prospective analysis of periodontitis and diabetes conditions ought to be conducted to clarify this association.
Topics: Adult; Cross-Sectional Studies; Diabetes Mellitus; Diabetic Retinopathy; Humans; Periodontitis; Prospective Studies
PubMed: 33490007
DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2020.550614