-
International Dental Journal Dec 2022The early detection and management of peri-implant mucositis may help in reducing inflammatory parameters and arrest disease progression to peri-implantitis. The... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The early detection and management of peri-implant mucositis may help in reducing inflammatory parameters and arrest disease progression to peri-implantitis. The potential therapeutic benefits of different adjunctive therapies, such as the diode laser, are still not completely understood. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analyses was to assess the outcomes of using diode laser on the management of peri-implant mucositis in terms of changes in periodontal parameters. Electronic databases were searched to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the combined use of mechanical debridement and diode laser with mechanical debridement alone. A specific risk-of-bias tool was used to assess the risk of bias. Data were analysed using a statistical software programme. In total, 149 studies were found. A meta-analysis of 3 RCTs showed no statistically significant differences in probing pocket depths (mean difference [MD], -0.36; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.88 to 0.16; P = .18) or bleeding on probing (MD, -0.71; 95% CI, 1.58-0.16; P = .11) between the 2 groups at 3 months. In the management of peri-implant mucositis, the combined use of diode laser and mechanical debridement did not provide any additional clinical advantage over mechanical debridement alone. Long-term, well-designed RCTs are still needed.
Topics: Humans; Peri-Implantitis; Mucositis; Lasers, Semiconductor; Stomatitis; Dental Implants
PubMed: 35931559
DOI: 10.1016/j.identj.2022.06.026 -
Clinical and Experimental Dental... Dec 2022To assess the Candida species occurrence rate and concentration in periodontal pockets in chronic periodontitis (CP) by meta-analysis. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
To assess the Candida species occurrence rate and concentration in periodontal pockets in chronic periodontitis (CP) by meta-analysis.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A search was performed of articles published between January 1, 2010, and October 1, 2020, in English and in Russian, in the electronic databases MEDLINE-PubMed, Google Scholar, The Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov, Research Gate, eLIBRARY, and Cyberleninka (PROSPEROCRD42021234831). The odds ratio (OR), standardized mean difference (SMD), and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated using Review Manager 5.4.1 to compare the risk of CP when Candida spp. were detected in the gingival sulcus or periodontal pocket and to compare Candida spp. density counts in patients with CP and periodontally healthy patients.
RESULTS
Twenty-six studies were included in the systematic review and 11 were included in the meta-analysis. The results showed that Candida spp. may increase the chance of CP development by 1.76 times (OR = 1.76; 95% CI = 1.04-2.99; Z = 2.10; p = .04; I = 61%). More Candida spp. were found in patients with CP than in periodontally healthy patients (SMD = 1.58; 95% CI = 0.15-3.02; p = .03; I = 98%). No data were found relating to the statistically significant influence of Candida glabrata, Candida krusei and Candida tropicalis on CP development.
CONCLUSION
We found that Candida albicans insignificantly increased the risk of CP development but, due to the heterogeneity of the included studies, further research is necessary to determine the exact role of Candida spp. in the development and course of the inflammatory periodontal diseases.
Topics: Humans; Chronic Periodontitis; Candida; Periodontal Pocket; Candida albicans; Gingiva
PubMed: 35903878
DOI: 10.1002/cre2.635 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2022Periodontitis is a highly prevalent, chronic inflammation that causes damage to the soft tissues and bones supporting the teeth. Conventional treatment is quadrant... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Periodontitis is a highly prevalent, chronic inflammation that causes damage to the soft tissues and bones supporting the teeth. Conventional treatment is quadrant scaling and root planing (the second step of periodontal therapy), which comprises scaling and root planing of teeth in one quadrant of the mouth at a time, with the four different sessions separated by at least one week. Alternative protocols for anti-infective periodontal therapy have been introduced to help enhance treatment outcomes: full-mouth scaling (subgingival instrumentation of all quadrants within 24 hours), or full-mouth disinfection (subgingival instrumentation of all quadrants in 24 hours plus adjunctive antiseptic). We use the older term 'scaling and root planing' (SRP) interchangeably with the newer term 'subgingival instrumentation' in this iteration of the review, which updates one originally published in 2008 and first updated in 2015.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the clinical effects of full-mouth scaling or full-mouth disinfection (within 24 hours) for the treatment of periodontitis compared to conventional quadrant subgingival instrumentation (over a series of visits at least one week apart) and to evaluate whether there was a difference in clinical effects between full-mouth disinfection and full-mouth scaling.
SEARCH METHODS
An information specialist searched five databases up to 17 June 2021 and used additional search methods to identify published, unpublished and ongoing studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) lasting at least three months that evaluated full-mouth scaling and root planing within 24 hours, with or without adjunctive use of an antiseptic, compared to conventional quadrant SRP (control). Participants had a clinical diagnosis of (chronic) periodontitis according to the International Classification of Periodontal Diseases from 1999. A new periodontitis classification was launched in 2018; however, we used the 1999 classification for inclusion or exclusion of studies, as most studies used it. We excluded studies of people with systemic disorders, taking antibiotics or with the older diagnosis of 'aggressive periodontitis'.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Several review authors independently conducted data extraction and risk of bias assessment (based on randomisation method, allocation concealment, examiner blinding and completeness of follow-up). Our primary outcomes were tooth loss and change in probing pocket depth (PPD); secondary outcomes were change in probing attachment (i.e. clinical attachment level (CAL)), bleeding on probing (BOP), adverse events and pocket closure (the number/proportion of sites with PPD of 4 mm or less after treatment). We followed Cochrane's methodological guidelines for data extraction and analysis.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 20 RCTs, with 944 participants, in this updated review. No studies assessed the primary outcome tooth loss. Thirteen trials compared full-mouth scaling and root planing within 24 hours without the use of antiseptic (FMS) versus control, 13 trials compared full-mouth scaling and root planing within 24 hours with adjunctive use of an antiseptic (FMD) versus control, and six trials compared FMS with FMD. Of the 13 trials comparing FMS versus control, we assessed three at high risk of bias, six at low risk of bias and four at unclear risk of bias. We assessed our certainty about the evidence as low or very low for the outcomes in this comparison. There was no evidence for a benefit for FMS over control for change in PPD, gain in CAL or reduction in BOP at six to eight months (PPD: mean difference (MD) 0.03 mm, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.14 to 0.20; 5 trials, 148 participants; CAL: MD 0.10 mm, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.26; 5 trials, 148 participants; BOP: MD 2.64%, 95% CI -8.81 to 14.09; 3 trials, 80 participants). There was evidence of heterogeneity for BOP (I² = 50%), but none for PPD and CAL. Of the 13 trials comparing FMD versus control, we judged four at high risk of bias, one at low risk of bias and eight at unclear risk of bias. At six to eight months, there was no evidence for a benefit for FMD over control for change in PPD or CAL (PPD: MD 0.11 mm, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.27; 6 trials, 224 participants; low-certainty evidence; CAL: 0.07 mm, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.24; 6 trials, 224 participants; low-certainty evidence). The analyses found no evidence of a benefit for FMD over control for BOP (very low-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of heterogeneity for PPD or CAL, but considerable evidence of heterogeneity for BOP, attributed to one study. There were no consistent differences in these outcomes between intervention and control (low- to very low-certainty evidence). Of the six trials comparing FMS and FMD, we judged two trials at high risk of bias, one at low risk of bias and three as unclear. At six to eight months, there was no evidence of a benefit of FMD over FMS for change in PPD or gain in CAL (PPD: MD -0.11 mm, 95% CI -0.30 to 0.07; P = 0.22; 4 trials, 112 participants; low-certainty evidence; CAL: MD -0.05 mm, 95% CI -0.23 to -0.13; P = 0.58; 4 trials, 112 participants; low-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of a difference between FMS and FMD for BOP at any time point (P = 0.98; 2 trials, 22 participants; low- to very low-certainty evidence). There was evidence of heterogeneity for BOP (I² = 52%), but not for PPD or CAL. Thirteen studies predefined adverse events as an outcome; three reported an event after FMD or FMS. The most important harm identified was an increase in body temperature. We assessed the certainty of the evidence for most comparisons and outcomes as low because of design limitations leading to risk of bias, and the small number of trials and participants, leading to imprecision in the effect estimates.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The inclusion of nine new RCTs in this updated review has not changed the conclusions of the previous version of the review. There is still no clear evidence that FMS or FMD approaches provide additional clinical benefit compared to conventional mechanical treatment for adult periodontitis. In practice, the decision to select one approach to non-surgical periodontal therapy over another should include patient preference and the convenience of the treatment schedule.
Topics: Adult; Anti-Infective Agents, Local; Chronic Periodontitis; Humans; Tooth Loss
PubMed: 35763286
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004622.pub4 -
Journal of Clinical Periodontology Oct 2022"Host modulatory therapy" (HMT) with ω-3 fatty acids aims at reducing inflammation. With HMT as an adjunct, a better result of periodontal therapy is expected. The aim... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
AIM
"Host modulatory therapy" (HMT) with ω-3 fatty acids aims at reducing inflammation. With HMT as an adjunct, a better result of periodontal therapy is expected. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis (MA) was to examine the additional effect of ω-3 fatty acids to non-surgical periodontal therapy (SRP) on the probing pocket depth (PPD) and the clinical attachment level (CAL).
MATERIALS AND METHODS
MEDLINE-PubMed and Cochrane-CENTRAL libraries were searched up to January 2021 for randomized controlled trials in patients with chronic periodontitis, treated with SRP/placebo as controls and SRP/ω-3 fatty acids as the test group.
RESULTS
The search identified 173 unique abstracts, and screening resulted in 10 eligible publications. Descriptive analysis showed a significant effect on the PPD and CAL in favour of the groups with ω-3 fatty acids in the majority of comparisons. MA revealed that adjunctive use of ω-3 fatty acids to SRP resulted in 0.39 mm more PPD reduction (95% CI: -0.58; -0.21) and 0.41 mm more CAL gain (95% CI: -0.63; -0.19) than SRP alone.
CONCLUSIONS
In patients with periodontitis, dietary supplementation with ω-3 fatty acids as an adjunct to SRP is more effective in reducing the PPD and improving the CAL than SRP alone. If SRP is indicated, the use of ω-3 fatty acids can be considered for a moderate extra added effect on PPD reduction and CAL gain. The strength of this recommendation is moderate.
Topics: Chronic Periodontitis; Dental Scaling; Fatty Acids, Omega-3; Humans; Root Planing
PubMed: 35713248
DOI: 10.1111/jcpe.13680 -
Pharmaceutics May 2022For many years, the use of probiotics in periodontitis treatment was reflected in their abilities to control the immune response of the host to the presence of... (Review)
Review
For many years, the use of probiotics in periodontitis treatment was reflected in their abilities to control the immune response of the host to the presence of pathogenic microorganisms and to upset periodontopathogens. Accordingly, the aim of the present study was to assess the use of probiotics as adjuvant therapy on clinical periodontal parameters throughout a systematic review and meta-analysis. The literature was screened, up to 4 June 2021, by two independent reviewers (L.H. and R.B.) in four electronic databases: PubMed (MedLine), ISI Web of Science, Scielo, and Scopus. Only clinical trials that report the effect of the use of probiotics as adjuvants in the treatment of periodontal disease were included. Comparisons were carried out using Review Manager Software version 5.3.5 (The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, Copenhagen, Denmark). A total of 21 studies were considered for the meta-analysis. For the index plaque, the use of probiotics did not improve this clinical parameter (p = 0.16). On the other hand, for the periodontal pocket depth, the clinical attachment loss, the bleeding on probing, and the use of probiotics as adjuvant therapy resulted in an improvement of these parameters, since the control group achieved statistically higher values of this parameter (p < 0.001; p < 0.001; and p = 0.005, respectively). This study suggests that the use of probiotics led to an improvement in periodontal pocket depth, clinical attachment loss, and bleeding on probing parameters. On the other hand, this protocol seems to not be beneficial for the index plaque parameter.
PubMed: 35631603
DOI: 10.3390/pharmaceutics14051017 -
International Journal of Environmental... Apr 2022This meta-analysis aimed to compare Marfan syndrome (MFS) patients with non-MFS populations based on orofacial health status to combine publicly available scientific... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
This meta-analysis aimed to compare Marfan syndrome (MFS) patients with non-MFS populations based on orofacial health status to combine publicly available scientific information while also improving the validity of primary study findings. A comprehensive search was performed in the following databases: PubMed, Google Scholar, Scopus, Medline, and Web of Science, for articles published between 1 January 2000 and 17 February 2022. PRISMA guidelines were followed to carry out this systematic review. We used the PECO system to classify people with MFS based on whether or not they had distinctive oral health characteristics compared to the non-MFS population. The following are some examples of how PECO is used: P denotes someone who has MFS; E stands for a medical or genetic assessment of MFS; C stands for people who do not have MFS; and O stands for the orofacial characteristics of MFS. Using the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale, independent reviewers assessed the articles' methodological quality and extracted data. Four case-control studies were analyzed for meta-analysis. Due to the wide range of variability, we were only able to include data from at least three previous studies. There was a statistically significant difference in bleeding on probing and pocket depth between MFS and non-MFS subjects. MFS patients are more prone to periodontal tissue inflammation due to the activity of FBN1 and MMPs. Early orthodontic treatment is beneficial for the correction of a narrow upper jaw and a high palate, as well as a skeletal class II with retrognathism of the lower jaw and crowding of teeth.
Topics: Case-Control Studies; Cleft Palate; Humans; Marfan Syndrome; Oral Health
PubMed: 35564443
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19095048 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2022Glycaemic control is a key component in diabetes mellitus (diabetes) management. Periodontitis is the inflammation and destruction of the underlying supporting tissues... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Glycaemic control is a key component in diabetes mellitus (diabetes) management. Periodontitis is the inflammation and destruction of the underlying supporting tissues of the teeth. Some studies have suggested a bidirectional relationship between glycaemic control and periodontitis. Treatment for periodontitis involves subgingival instrumentation, which is the professional removal of plaque, calculus, and debris from below the gumline using hand or ultrasonic instruments. This is known variously as scaling and root planing, mechanical debridement, or non-surgical periodontal treatment. Subgingival instrumentation is sometimes accompanied by local or systemic antimicrobials, and occasionally by surgical intervention to cut away gum tissue when periodontitis is severe. This review is part one of an update of a review published in 2010 and first updated in 2015, and evaluates periodontal treatment versus no intervention or usual care. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the effects of periodontal treatment on glycaemic control in people with diabetes mellitus and periodontitis.
SEARCH METHODS
An information specialist searched six bibliographic databases up to 7 September 2021 and additional search methods were used to identify published, unpublished, and ongoing studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of people with type 1 or type 2 diabetes mellitus and a diagnosis of periodontitis that compared subgingival instrumentation (sometimes with surgical treatment or adjunctive antimicrobial therapy or both) to no active intervention or 'usual care' (oral hygiene instruction, education or support interventions, and/or supragingival scaling (also known as PMPR, professional mechanical plaque removal)). To be included, the RCTs had to have lasted at least 3 months and have measured HbA1c (glycated haemoglobin).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
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. Where necessary and possible, we attempted to contact study authors. Our primary outcome was blood glucose levels measured as glycated (glycosylated) haemoglobin assay (HbA1c), which can be reported as a percentage of total haemoglobin or as millimoles per mole (mmol/mol). Our secondary outcomes included adverse effects, periodontal indices (bleeding on probing, clinical attachment level, gingival index, plaque index, and probing pocket depth), quality of life, cost implications, and diabetic complications.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 35 studies, which randomised 3249 participants to periodontal treatment or control. All studies used a parallel-RCT design and followed up participants for between 3 and 12 months. The studies focused on people with type 2 diabetes, other than one study that included participants with type 1 or type 2 diabetes. Most studies were mixed in terms of whether metabolic control of participants at baseline was good, fair, or poor. Most studies were carried out in secondary care. We assessed two studies as being at low risk of bias, 14 studies at high risk of bias, and the risk of bias in 19 studies was unclear. We undertook a sensitivity analysis for our primary outcome based on studies at low risk of bias and this supported the main findings. Moderate-certainty evidence from 30 studies (2443 analysed participants) showed an absolute reduction in HbA1c of 0.43% (4.7 mmol/mol) 3 to 4 months after treatment of periodontitis (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.59% to -0.28%; -6.4 mmol/mol to -3.0 mmol/mol). Similarly, after 6 months, we found an absolute reduction in HbA1c of 0.30% (3.3 mmol/mol) (95% CI -0.52% to -0.08%; -5.7 mmol/mol to -0.9 mmol/mol; 12 studies, 1457 participants), and after 12 months, an absolute reduction of 0.50% (5.4 mmol/mol) (95% CI -0.55% to -0.45%; -6.0 mmol/mol to -4.9 mmol/mol; 1 study, 264 participants). Studies that measured adverse effects generally reported that no or only mild harms occurred, and any serious adverse events were similar in intervention and control arms. However, adverse effects of periodontal treatments were not evaluated in most studies.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Our 2022 update of this review has doubled the number of included studies and participants, which has led to a change in our conclusions about the primary outcome of glycaemic control and in our level of certainty in this conclusion. We now have moderate-certainty evidence that periodontal treatment using subgingival instrumentation improves glycaemic control in people with both periodontitis and diabetes by a clinically significant amount when compared to no treatment or usual care. Further trials evaluating periodontal treatment versus no treatment/usual care are unlikely to change the overall conclusion reached in this review.
Topics: Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Glycated Hemoglobin; Glycemic Control; Humans; Periodontal Index; Periodontitis
PubMed: 35420698
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004714.pub4 -
Clinical Oral Investigations Jun 2022To assess the potential additional benefit of the local application of enamel matrix derivative (EMD) on the clinical outcomes following non-surgical periodontal therapy... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
To assess the potential additional benefit of the local application of enamel matrix derivative (EMD) on the clinical outcomes following non-surgical periodontal therapy (NSPT) (steps 1 and 2 periodontal therapy).
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A systematic literature search was performed in several electronic databases, including Medline/PubMed, Embase, The Cochrane Register of Central Trials (CENTRAL), LILACS, and grey literature. Only randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) were eligible for inclusion. Clinical attachment level (CAL) change (primary outcome), probing pocket depth (PPD), and bleeding on probing (BoP) reductions (secondary outcomes) were evaluated. The Cochrane Risk of Bias tool (RoB 2.0) was used to assess the quality of the included trials. Weighted mean differences (WMDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) between test and control sites were estimated using a random-effect model for amount of mean CAL and PPD change.
RESULTS
Six RCTs were included for the qualitative analysis, while data from 4 studies were used for meta-analysis. Overall analysis of CAL gain (3 studies) and PPD reduction (4 studies) presented WMD of 0.14 mm (p = 0.74; CI 95% - 0.66; 0.94) and 0.46 mm (p = 0.25; CI 95% - 0.33; 1.26) in favor of NSPT + EMD compared to NSPT alone respectively. Statistical heterogeneity was found to be high in both cases (I = 79% and 87%, respectively).
CONCLUSIONS
Within their limitations, the present data indicate that the local application of EMD does not lead to additional clinical benefits after 3 to 12 months when used as an adjunctive to NSPT. However, due to the high heterogeneity among the studies, additional well-designed RCTs are needed to provide further evidence on this clinical indication for the use of EMD.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE
The adjunctive use of EMD to NSPT does not seem to additionally improve the clinical outcomes obtained with NSPT alone.
Topics: Dental Care; Dental Scaling; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 35389113
DOI: 10.1007/s00784-022-04474-1 -
Materials (Basel, Switzerland) Mar 2022The aim of this systematic review of randomized controlled trials was to evaluate the adjunctive use of leucocyte- and platelet-rich fibrin (L-PRF) in periodontal... (Review)
Review
The aim of this systematic review of randomized controlled trials was to evaluate the adjunctive use of leucocyte- and platelet-rich fibrin (L-PRF) in periodontal endosseous and furcation defects, as compared without L-PRF. The endosseous defect group was subclassified into: L-PRF/open flap debridement (L-PRF/OFD) versus OFD, L-PRF/osseous graft (L-PRF/OG) versus OG, L-PRF/Emdogain (L-PRF/EMD) versus EMD, and L-PRF/guided tissue regeneration (L-PRF/GTR) versus GTR. The furcation defect group was subclassified into L-PRF/OFD versus OFD, and L-PRF/OG versus OG. Mean difference, 95% confidence intervals and forest plots were calculated for probing pocket depth (PPD), clinical attachment level (CAL) and radiographic defect depth (DD). Nineteen studies concerning systemically healthy non-smokers were included. The results of this systematic review and meta-analysis showed in two- and/or three-wall endosseous defects that the adjunctive use of L-PRF to OFD or OG was significantly beneficial for PPD reduction, CAL gain and DD reduction, as compared without L-PRF. Furthermore, the data showed that for two- and/or three-wall endosseous defects, the adjunctive use of L-PRF to GTR was significantly beneficial for CAL and DD improvement, whereas adding L-PRF to EMD had no significant effect, and that for class II furcation defects, the addition of L-PRF to OFD was significantly beneficial for PPD, CAL and DD improvement, whereas the addition of L-PRF to OG was significantly clinically beneficial. In conclusion, this systematic review and meta-analysis found that there was significant clinical and radiographic additive effectiveness of L-PRF to OFD and to OG in two- and/or three-wall periodontal endosseous defects of systemically healthy non-smokers, as compared without L-PRF.
PubMed: 35329540
DOI: 10.3390/ma15062088 -
International Journal of Environmental... Mar 2022Purpose: To explore whether baseline matrix metalloproteinase (MMP)-8 level in gingival crevicular fluid (GCF) (exposure) can predict the outcome (reduction in probing... (Review)
Review
Purpose: To explore whether baseline matrix metalloproteinase (MMP)-8 level in gingival crevicular fluid (GCF) (exposure) can predict the outcome (reduction in probing pocket depth (PPD) (outcome)) of nonsurgical periodontal therapy (NSPT) (manual or ultrasonic or both) in patients with periodontitis (population/problem) after 3 months. Methods: Six databases (PubMed, Cochrane library, ProQuest, Ovid, Scopus, EBSCO) were searched for relevant articles published until 30 July 2021. Retrieved articles were passed through a three-phase filtration process on the basis of the eligibility criteria. The primary outcome was the change in PPD after 3 months. Quality of the selected articles was assessed using Cochrane Risk of Bias tool (RoB2) and Risk of Bias In Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) tools. Results: From 1306 articles, five were selected for analysis. The results showed high variations in the level of GCF MMP-8 level at baseline. The average amount of reduction in PPD was 1.20 and 2.30 mm for pockets with initial depth of 4−6 mm and >6 mm, respectively. Conclusion: On the basis of available evidence, it was not possible to reach a consensus on the ability of baseline GCF MMP-8 to forecast the outcome of NSPT. This could have been due to variation in clinical and laboratory techniques used. However, consistency in mean PPD reduction after 3 months was shown.
Topics: Gingival Crevicular Fluid; Humans; Matrix Metalloproteinase 8; Periodontitis
PubMed: 35270821
DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19053131