-
Journal of Periodontology Dec 2022A large variety of biomaterials, biologics and membranes have been utilized in the past 40 years for the regenerative treatment of periodontal infrabony defects.... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
A large variety of biomaterials, biologics and membranes have been utilized in the past 40 years for the regenerative treatment of periodontal infrabony defects. Biologic agents have progressively gained popularity among clinicians and are routinely used for periodontal regeneration. In alignment with the goals of the American Academy of Periodontology (AAP) Best Evidence Consensus (BEC) on the use of biologic mediators in contemporary clinical practice, the aim of this sytematic review was to evaluate the effect of biologic agents, specifically autogenous blood-dervied products (ABPs), enamel matrix derivative (EMD) and recombinant human platelet-derived growth factor-BB (rhPDGF-BB), on the regenerative outcomes of infrabony defects.
METHODS
A detailed systematic search was conducted to identify eligible randomized control trials (RCTs) reporting the outcomes of periodontal regenerative therapy using biologics for the treatment of infrabony defects. A frequentist mixed-modeling approach to network meta-analysis (NMA), characterized by the assessment of three individual components for the treatment of an infrabony defect (the bone graft material [BG], the biologic agent, the application of a barrier membrane) was performed to evaluate and compare the relative efficacy of the different components, on the outcomes of different therapeutic modalities of periodontal regeneration.
RESULTS
A total of 153 eligible RCTs were included, with 150 studies contributing to the NMA. The quantitative analysis showed that the addition of biologic agents to bone graft significantly improves the clinical and radiographic outcomes, as compared to BG and flap procedures alone. Barrier membranes enhanced the regenerative outcomes of BG but did not provide further benefits in combination with biologics. The type of BG (autogenous, allogeneic, xenogeneic or alloplastic) and the biologic agent (EMD, platelet-rich fibrin [PRF], platelet-rich plasma [PRP] or rhPDGF-BB) played a significant role on the final outcomes of infrabony defects. Allogeneic and xenogeneic BGs exhibited statistically significantly superior clinical gain than synthetic and autogenous BGs (p < 0.05 in all the comparisons), while rhPDGF-BB and PRF demonstrated significantly higher stability of the gingival margin (p < 0.01) and radiographic bone fill/gain (p < 0.05), together with greater, although not statistically significant, clinical attachment level gain and pocket depth reduction, than EMD and PRP. Overall, rhPDGF-BB exhibited the largest effect size for most parameters, including clinical attachment level gain, pocket depth reduction, less gingival recession and radiographic linear bone gain. Considering the relatively high number of trials presenting an unclear or high risk of bias, the strength of recommendation supporting the use of PRP was judged weak, while the recommendation for EMD, PRF and rhPDGF-BB was deemed in favor.
CONCLUSIONS
Biologics enhance the outcomes of periodontal regenerative therapy. Combination therapies involving BGs + biologics or BGs + barrier membrane demonstrated to be superior to monotherapies. The choice of the type of BG and biologic agent seems to have significant impact on the clinical and radiographic outcomes of infrabony defects.
Topics: Humans; Guided Tissue Regeneration, Periodontal; Becaplermin; Alveolar Bone Loss; Network Meta-Analysis; Biological Products; Periodontal Attachment Loss
PubMed: 36279121
DOI: 10.1002/JPER.22-0120 -
Journal of Periodontology Feb 2015Previous systematic reviews of periodontal regeneration with bone replacement grafts and guided tissue regeneration (GTR) were defined as state of the art for clinical... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Previous systematic reviews of periodontal regeneration with bone replacement grafts and guided tissue regeneration (GTR) were defined as state of the art for clinical periodontal regeneration as of 2002.
METHODS
The purpose of this systematic review is to update those consensus reports by reviewing periodontal regeneration approaches developed for the correction of intrabony defects with the focus on patient-, tooth-, and site-centered factors, surgical approaches, surgical determinants, and biologics. This review adheres to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines for systematic reviews. A computerized search of the PubMed and Cochrane databases was performed to evaluate the clinically available regenerative approaches for intrabony defects. The search included screening of original reports, review articles, and reference lists of retrieved articles and hand searches of selected journals. All searches were focused on clinically available regenerative approaches with histologic evidence of periodontal regeneration in humans published in English. For topics in which the literature is lacking, non-randomized observational and experimental animal model studies were used. Therapeutic endpoints examined included changes in clinical attachment level, changes in bone level/fill, and probing depth. For purposes of analysis, change in bone fill was used as the primary outcome measure, except in cases in which this information was not available. The SORT (Strength of Recommendation Taxonomy) grading scale was used in evaluating the body of knowledge.
RESULTS
1) Fifty-eight studies provided data on patient, tooth, and surgical-site considerations in the treatment of intrabony defects. 2) Forty-five controlled studies provided outcome analysis on the use of biologics for the treatment of intrabony defects.
CONCLUSIONS
1) Biologics (enamel matrix derivative and recombinant human platelet-derived growth factor-BB plus β-tricalcium phosphate) are generally comparable with demineralized freeze-dried bone allograft and GTR and superior to open flap debridement procedures in improving clinical parameters in the treatment of intrabony defects. 2) Histologic evidence of regeneration has been demonstrated with laser therapy; however, data are limited on clinical predictability and effectiveness. 3) Clinical outcomes appear most appreciably influenced by patient behaviors and surgical approach rather than by tooth and defect characteristics. 4) Long-term studies indicate that improvements in clinical parameters are maintainable up to 10 years, even in severely compromised teeth, consistent with a favorable/good long-term prognosis.
Topics: Alveolar Bone Loss; Bone Transplantation; Growth Substances; Guided Tissue Regeneration, Periodontal; Humans; Orthodontics, Corrective; Periodontal Attachment Loss; Periodontal Pocket; Root Canal Therapy; Surgical Flaps; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 25216204
DOI: 10.1902/jop.2015.130685 -
Biomaterials for promoting periodontal regeneration in human intrabony defects: a systematic review.Periodontology 2000 Jun 2015Intrabony periodontal defects are a frequent complication of periodontitis and, if left untreated, may negatively affect long-term tooth prognosis. The optimal outcome... (Review)
Review
Intrabony periodontal defects are a frequent complication of periodontitis and, if left untreated, may negatively affect long-term tooth prognosis. The optimal outcome of treatment in intrabony defects is considered to be the absence of bleeding on probing, the presence of shallow pockets associated with periodontal regeneration (i.e. formation of new root cementum with functionally orientated inserting periodontal ligament fibers connected to new alveolar bone) and no soft-tissue recession. A plethora of different surgical techniques, often including implantation of various types of bone graft and/or bone substitutes, root surface demineralization, guided tissue regeneration, growth and differentiation factors, enamel matrix proteins or various combinations thereof, have been employed to achieve periodontal regeneration. Despite positive observations in animal models and successful outcomes reported for many of the available regenerative techniques and materials in patients, including histologic reports, robust information on the degree to which reported clinical improvements reflect true periodontal regeneration does not exist. Thus, the aim of this review was to summarize, in a systematic manner, the available histologic evidence on the effect of reconstructive periodontal surgery using various types of biomaterials to enhance periodontal wound healing/regeneration in human intrabony defects. In addition, the inherent problems associated with performing human histologic studies and in interpreting the results, as well as certain ethical considerations, are discussed. The results of the present systematic review indicate that periodontal regeneration in human intrabony defects can be achieved to a variable extent using a range of methods and materials. Periodontal regeneration has been observed following the use of a variety of bone grafts and substitutes, guided tissue regeneration, biological factors and combinations thereof. Combination approaches appear to provide the best outcomes, whilst implantation of alloplastic material alone demonstrated limited, to no, periodontal regeneration.
Topics: Animals; Biocompatible Materials; Bone Regeneration; Bone Substitutes; Bone Transplantation; Guided Tissue Regeneration, Periodontal; Humans; Periodontal Pocket; Treatment Outcome; Wound Healing
PubMed: 25867987
DOI: 10.1111/prd.12086 -
BMC Oral Health Jul 2020To systematically review the epidemiologic relationship between periodontitis and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
To systematically review the epidemiologic relationship between periodontitis and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).
METHODS
Four electronic databases were searched up until December 2018. The manual search included the reference lists of the included studies and relevant journals. Observational studies evaluating the relationship between T2DM and periodontitis were included. Meta-analyses were conducted using STATA.
RESULTS
A total of 53 observational studies were included. The Adjusted T2DM prevalence was significantly higher in periodontitis patients (OR = 4.04, p = 0.000), and vice versa (OR = 1.58, p = 0.000). T2DM patients had significantly worse periodontal status, as reflected in a 0.61 mm deeper periodontal pocket, a 0.89 mm higher attachment loss and approximately 2 more lost teeth (all p = 0.000), than those without T2DM. The results of the cohort studies found that T2DM could elevate the risk of developing periodontitis by 34% (p = 0.002). The glycemic control of T2DM patients might result in different periodontitis outcomes. Severe periodontitis increased the incidence of T2DM by 53% (p = 0.000), and this result was stable. In contrast, the impact of mild periodontitis on T2DM incidence (RR = 1.28, p = 0.007) was less robust.
CONCLUSIONS
There is an evident bidirectional relationship between T2DM and periodontitis. Further well-designed cohort studies are needed to confirm this finding. Our results suggest that both dentists and physicians need to be aware of the strong connection between periodontitis and T2DM. Controlling these two diseases might help prevent each other's incidence.
Topics: Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Humans; Periodontal Pocket; Periodontitis
PubMed: 32652980
DOI: 10.1186/s12903-020-01180-w -
Journal of Clinical Periodontology May 2023The aim of the study was to evaluate the prevalence of periodontitis in dentate people between 2011 and 2020. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
AIM
The aim of the study was to evaluate the prevalence of periodontitis in dentate people between 2011 and 2020.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
PUBMED, Web of Science, and LILACS were searched up to and including December 2021. Epidemiological studies reporting the prevalence of periodontitis conducted between 2011 and 2020 were eligible for inclusion in this review. Studies were grouped according to the case definition of confidence as confident (Centers for Disease Control [CDC] AAP 2012; CDC/AAP 2007; and Armitage 1999) and non-confident (community periodontal index of 3 or 4, periodontal pocket depth >4 mm, and clinical attachment level ≥1 mm). Random effects meta-analyses with double arcsine transformation were conducted. Sensitivity subgroup and meta-regression analyses explored the effect of confounding variables on the overall estimates.
RESULTS
A total 55 studies were included. The results showed a significant difference, with confident case definitions (61.6%) reporting nearly twice the prevalence as non-confident classifications (38.5%). Estimates using confident periodontal case definitions showed a pooled prevalence of periodontitis of 61.6%, comprising 17 different countries. Estimates reporting using the CDC/AAP 2012 case definition presented the highest estimate (68.1%) and the CDC/AAP 2007 presented the lowest (48.8%). Age was a relevant confounding variable, as older participants (≥65 years) had the highest pooled estimate (79.3%).
CONCLUSION
Between 2011 and 2020, periodontitis in dentate adults was estimated to be around 62% and severe periodontitis 23.6%. These results show an unusually high prevalence of periodontitis compared to the previous estimates from 1990 to 2010.
Topics: Adult; Humans; Aged; Prevalence; Periodontitis; Epidemiologic Studies; Periodontal Index; Periodontal Pocket
PubMed: 36631982
DOI: 10.1111/jcpe.13769 -
Clinical Oral Investigations Jan 2023The aim of this systematic review was to examine the literature on aggressive and chronic periodontitis and orthodontics to clarify the therapy-relevant aspects of... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
The aim of this systematic review was to examine the literature on aggressive and chronic periodontitis and orthodontics to clarify the therapy-relevant aspects of orthodontic treatment with altered biomechanics in periodontally compromised dentition.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Literature searches were conducted in the electronic databases "PubMed" and "DIMDI" using the keywords "aggressive periodontitis AND ortho*," "aggressive periodontitis AND orthodontics," "chronic periodontitis AND ortho*," and "chronic periodontitis AND orthodontics" for the publication period from January 1990 to July 2022. In addition, a manual search was carried out in the selected trade journals "Community Dental Health," "European Journal of Oral Sciences," and "Parodontologie." Human clinical trials were included, whereas animal experimental studies, case reports, and reviews were generally excluded. The appropriate studies were selected, and the relevant data was tabulated according to different parameters, regarding the study design, the study structure, and the conduct of the study.
RESULTS
A total of 1067 articles were found in the preliminary electronic search. The manual search and review of all related bibliographies resulted in an additional 1591 hits. After the first screening, 43 articles were classified as potentially relevant and reviewed in their original form. After the suitability test, 5 studies with a total of 366 participants were included in the final evaluation. These included one randomized controlled trial and four low-evidence intervention studies. The studies were conducted in two university hospitals and three private practices. All participants underwent scaling and root plaining and periodontal surgery before the orthodontic treatment started. Mean probing pocket depth reduction before and after the interdisciplinary treatment was analyzed in all the included studies; mean difference in clinical attachment level in four of the studies was also included. All participants were enrolled in a continuous recall system. In all studies, orthodontic therapy in periodontally compromised patients improved function and esthetics, resulting in lower probing depths and clinical attachment gains.
CONCLUSIONS
Orthodontic treatment can be used for patients with reduced periodontal support to stabilize clinical findings and improve function and esthetics. The prerequisite for this is a profound knowledge of altered biomechanics and an adapted interdisciplinary treatment approach. Due to the large heterogeneity of the included studies and their limited methodological quality, the results obtained in this review must be considered critically. Further randomized controlled long-term studies with comparable study designs are necessary to obtain reliable and reproducible treatment results.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE
Patients with periodontal impairment can be successfully treated with orthodontics as part of interdisciplinary therapy. Orthodontic treatment has no negative impact on the periodontium; if minimal, controlled forces are used under non-inflammatory conditions.
Topics: Humans; Aggressive Periodontitis; Chronic Periodontitis; Dental Care; Esthetics, Dental; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 36502508
DOI: 10.1007/s00784-022-04822-1 -
Journal of Clinical Periodontology Jan 2022To analyse the efficacy of non-surgical therapy (NST) in terms of pocket closure (PC) and changes in percentage and number of pockets. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
AIM
To analyse the efficacy of non-surgical therapy (NST) in terms of pocket closure (PC) and changes in percentage and number of pockets.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Three databases (PubMed, EMBASE, and Scopus) were searched up to January 2020. Prospective studies with a minimum follow-up of 12 months and presenting data in terms of PC or number or percentage of pocket depths (PDs) before and after NST on systemically healthy patients were included. Random-effect meta-analyses were performed.
RESULTS
After screening 4610 titles and abstracts, 27 studies were included. Of these, 63.9% of PC was reported by one study. The percentage of PDs ≤3 mm changed from 39.06% to 64.11% with a weighted mean difference (WMD) of 26.14% (p < .001). This accounted for a relative increase of healthy sites of 64.13%. The mean percentage of PD ≥5 mm was 28.23% and 11.71% before and after treatment, respectively, with a WMD of 15.50% (p < .001). The WMD in the number of PDs ≥5 mm before and after treatment was 24.42 (p = .036). The mean number of residual PPD ≥5 after NST was 14.13.
CONCLUSIONS
NST is able to eradicate the majority of the pockets. However, residual pockets after NST may remain and should be considered cautiously for further treatment planning.
Topics: Dental Scaling; Disease Progression; Humans; Prospective Studies; Root Planing
PubMed: 34517433
DOI: 10.1111/jcpe.13547 -
Journal of Clinical Periodontology Jul 2020To investigate the clinical performance of regenerative periodontal surgery in the treatment of furcation defects versus open flap debridement (OFD) and to compare... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
AIMS
To investigate the clinical performance of regenerative periodontal surgery in the treatment of furcation defects versus open flap debridement (OFD) and to compare different regenerative modalities.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
A systematic search was conducted to identify RCTs evaluating regenerative surgical treatment of furcations with a minimum of 12-month follow-up. Three authors independently reviewed, selected and extracted data from the search conducted and assessed risk of bias. Primary outcomes were tooth loss, furcation improvement (closure/conversion) (FImp), gain of horizontal bone level (HBL) and attachment level (HCAL). Secondary outcomes were gain in vertical attachment level (VCAL), probing pocket depth (PPD) reduction, PROMs and adverse events. Data were summarized into Bayesian standard and network meta-analysis in order to estimate direct and indirect treatment effects and to establish a ranking of treatments.
RESULTS
The search identified 19 articles, reporting on 20 RCTs (19 on class II, 1 on class III furcations) with a total of 575 patients/787 defects. Tooth loss was not reported. Furcation closure ranged between 0% and 60% (10 trials), and class I conversion from 29% to 100% (six trials). Regenerative techniques were superior to OFD for FImp (OR = 20.9; 90% CrI = 5.81, 69.41), HCAL gain (1.6 mm), VCAL gain (1.3 mm) and PPD reduction (1.3 mm). Bone replacement grafts (BRG) resulted in the highest probability (Pr = 61%) of being the best treatment for HBL gain. Non-resorbable membranes + BRG ranked as the best treatment for VCAL gain (Pr = 75%) and PPD reduction (Pr = 56%).
CONCLUSIONS
Regenerative surgery of class II furcations is superior to OFD. FImp (furcation closure or class I conversion) can be expected for the majority of defects. Treatment modalities involving BRG are associated with higher performance.
Topics: Bayes Theorem; Furcation Defects; Guided Tissue Regeneration, Periodontal; Humans; Membranes, Artificial; Network Meta-Analysis; Periodontal Attachment Loss; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 31860125
DOI: 10.1111/jcpe.13238 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2018Periodontitis is a bacterially-induced, chronic inflammatory disease that destroys the connective tissues and bone that support teeth. Active periodontal treatment aims... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Periodontitis is a bacterially-induced, chronic inflammatory disease that destroys the connective tissues and bone that support teeth. Active periodontal treatment aims to reduce the inflammatory response, primarily through eradication of bacterial deposits. Following completion of treatment and arrest of inflammation, supportive periodontal therapy (SPT) is employed to reduce the probability of re-infection and progression of the disease; to maintain teeth without pain, excessive mobility or persistent infection in the long term, and to prevent related oral diseases.According to the American Academy of Periodontology, SPT should include all components of a typical dental recall examination, and importantly should also include periodontal re-evaluation and risk assessment, supragingival and subgingival removal of bacterial plaque and calculus, and re-treatment of any sites showing recurrent or persistent disease. While the first four points might be expected to form part of the routine examination appointment for periodontally healthy patients, the inclusion of thorough periodontal evaluation, risk assessment and subsequent treatment - normally including mechanical debridement of any plaque or calculus deposits - differentiates SPT from routine care.Success of SPT has been reported in a number of long-term, retrospective studies. This review aimed to assess the evidence available from randomised controlled trials (RCTs).
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effects of supportive periodontal therapy (SPT) in the maintenance of the dentition of adults treated for periodontitis.
SEARCH METHODS
Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 8 May 2017), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library, 2017, Issue 5), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 8 May 2017), and Embase Ovid (1980 to 8 May 2017). The US National Institutes of Health Trials Registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating SPT versus monitoring only or alternative approaches to mechanical debridement; SPT alone versus SPT with adjunctive interventions; different approaches to or providers of SPT; and different time intervals for SPT delivery.We excluded split-mouth studies where we considered there could be a risk of contamination.Participants must have completed active periodontal therapy at least six months prior to randomisation and be enrolled in an SPT programme. Trials must have had a minimum follow-up period of 12 months.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened search results to identify studies for inclusion, assessed the risk of bias in included studies and extracted study data. When possible, we calculated mean differences (MDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for continuous variables. Two review authors assessed the quality of evidence for each comparison and outcome using GRADE criteria.
MAIN RESULTS
We included four trials involving 307 participants aged 31 to 85 years, who had been previously treated for moderate to severe chronic periodontitis. Three studies compared adjuncts to mechanical debridement in SPT versus debridement only. The adjuncts were local antibiotics in two studies (one at high risk of bias and one at low risk) and photodynamic therapy in one study (at unclear risk of bias). One study at high risk of bias compared provision of SPT by a specialist versus general practitioner. We did not identify any RCTs evaluating the effects of SPT versus monitoring only, or of providing SPT at different time intervals, or that compared the effects of mechanical debridement using different approaches or technologies.No included trials measured our primary outcome 'tooth loss'; however, studies evaluated signs of inflammation and potential periodontal disease progression, including bleeding on probing (BoP), clinical attachment level (CAL) and probing pocket depth (PPD).There was no evidence of a difference between SPT delivered by a specialist versus a general practitioner for BoP or PPD at 12 months (very low-quality evidence). This study did not measure CAL or adverse events.Due to heterogeneous outcome reporting, it was not possible to combine data from the two studies comparing mechanical debridement with or without the use of adjunctive local antibiotics. Both studies found no evidence of a difference between groups at 12 months (low to very low-quality evidence). There were no adverse events in either study.The use of adjunctive photodynamic therapy did not demonstrate evidence of benefit compared to mechanical debridement only (very low-quality evidence). Adverse events were not measured.The quality of the evidence is low to very low for these comparisons. Future research is likely to change the findings, therefore the results should be interpreted with caution.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Overall, there is insufficient evidence to determine the superiority of different protocols or adjunctive strategies to improve tooth maintenance during SPT. No trials evaluated SPT versus monitoring only. The evidence available for the comparisons evaluated is of low to very low quality, and hampered by dissimilarities in outcome reporting. More trials using uniform definitions and outcomes are required to address the objectives of this review.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Chronic Periodontitis; Dental Plaque; Humans; Middle Aged; Periodontal Debridement; Periodontics; Photochemotherapy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Tooth Loss
PubMed: 29291254
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009376.pub2 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Nov 2015Glycaemic control is a key issue in the care of people with diabetes mellitus (DM). Periodontal disease is the inflammation and destruction of the underlying supporting... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Glycaemic control is a key issue in the care of people with diabetes mellitus (DM). Periodontal disease is the inflammation and destruction of the underlying supporting tissues of the teeth. Some studies have suggested a bidirectional relationship between glycaemic control and periodontal disease. This review updates the previous version published in 2010.
OBJECTIVES
The objective is to investigate the effect of periodontal therapy on glycaemic control in people with diabetes mellitus.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following electronic databases: the Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register (to 31 December 2014), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (Cochrane Library 2014, Issue 11), MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to 31 December 2014), EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 31 December 2014), LILACS via BIREME (1982 to 31 December 2014), and CINAHL via EBSCO (1937 to 31 December 2014). ZETOC (1993 to 31 December 2014) and Web of Knowledge (1990 to 31 December 2014) were searched for conference proceedings. Additionally, two periodontology journals were handsearched for completeness, Annals of Periodontology (1996 to 2003) and Periodontology 2000 (1993 to 2003). We searched the US National Institutes of Health Trials Registry (http://clinicaltrials.gov) and the WHO Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of people with type 1 or type 2 DM (T1DM/T2DM) with a diagnosis of periodontitis. Interventions included periodontal treatments such as mechanical debridement, surgical treatment and antimicrobial therapy. Two broad comparisons were proposed:1. periodontal therapy versus no active intervention/usual care;2. periodontal therapy versus alternative periodontal therapy.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
For this review update, at least two review authors independently examined the titles and abstracts retrieved by the search, selected the included trials, extracted data from included trials and assessed included trials for risk of bias.Our primary outcome was blood glucose levels measured as glycated (glycosylated) haemoglobin assay (HbA1c).Our secondary outcomes included adverse effects, periodontal indices (bleeding on probing (BOP), clinical attachment level (CAL), gingival index (GI), plaque index (PI) and probing pocket depth (PPD)), cost implications and diabetic complications.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 35 studies (including seven from the previous version of the review), which included 2565 participants in total. All studies used a parallel RCT design, and 33 studies (94%) only targeted T2DM patients. There was variation between studies with regards to included age groups (ages 18 to 80), duration of follow-up (3 to 12 months), use of antidiabetic therapy, and included participants' baseline HbA1c levels (from 5.5% to 13.1%).We assessed 29 studies (83%) as being at high risk of bias, two studies (6%) as being at low risk of bias, and four studies (11%) as unclear. Thirty-four of the studies provided data suitable for analysis under one or both of the two comparisons.Comparison 1: low quality evidence from 14 studies (1499 participants) comparing periodontal therapy with no active intervention/usual care demonstrated that mean HbA1c was 0.29% lower (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.48% to 0.10% lower) 3 to 4 months post-treatment, and 0.02% lower after 6 months (five studies, 826 participants; 95% CI 0.20% lower to 0.16% higher).Comparison 2: 21 studies (920 participants) compared different periodontal therapies with each other. There was only very low quality evidence for the multiple head-to-head comparisons, the majority of which were unsuitable to be pooled, and provided no clear evidence of a benefit for one periodontal intervention over another. We were able to pool the specific comparison between scaling and root planing (SRP) plus antimicrobial versus SRP and there was no consistent evidence that the addition of antimicrobials to SRP was of any benefit to delivering SRP alone (mean HbA1c 0.00% lower: 12 studies, 450 participants; 95% CI 0.22% lower to 0.22% higher) at 3-4 months post-treatment, or after 6 months (mean HbA1c 0.04% lower: five studies, 206 patients; 95% CI 0.41% lower to 0.32% higher).Less than half of the studies measured adverse effects. The evidence was insufficient to conclude whether any of the treatments were associated with harm. No other patient-reported outcomes (e.g. quality of life) were measured by the included studies, and neither were cost implications or diabetic complications.Studies showed varying degrees of success with regards to achieving periodontal health, with some showing high levels of residual inflammation following treatment. Statistically significant improvements were shown for all periodontal indices (BOP, CAL, GI, PI and PPD) at 3-4 and 6 months in comparison 1; however, this was less clear for individual comparisons within the broad category of comparison 2.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is low quality evidence that the treatment of periodontal disease by SRP does improve glycaemic control in people with diabetes, with a mean percentage reduction in HbA1c of 0.29% at 3-4 months; however, there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that this is maintained after 4 months.There was no evidence to support that one periodontal therapy was more effective than another in improving glycaemic control in people with diabetes mellitus.In clinical practice, ongoing professional periodontal treatment will be required to maintain clinical improvements beyond 6 months. Further research is required to determine whether adjunctive drug therapies should be used with periodontal treatment. Future RCTs should evaluate this, provide longer follow-up periods, and consider the inclusion of a third 'no treatment' control arm.Larger, well conducted and clearly reported studies are needed in order to understand the potential of periodontal treatment to improve glycaemic control among people with diabetes mellitus. In addition, it will be important in future studies that the intervention is effective in reducing periodontal inflammation and maintaining it at lowered levels throughout the period of observation.
Topics: Dental Scaling; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 1; Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Glycated Hemoglobin; Humans; Hyperglycemia; Oral Hygiene; Periodontal Diseases; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Root Planing; Time Factors
PubMed: 26545069
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004714.pub3