Treatment of periodontal disease for glycaemic control in people with diabetes

The effect of antibiotics on the periodontal treatment of diabetic patients with periodontitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: The aim of this meta-analysis was to compare the effects of periodontal treatment with or without adjunctive antibiotic on periodontal status and blood glucose level in diabetic patients with periodontitis. Methods: A search using electronic database (MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) and a manual search were performed up to July 2022. Eligible 13 RCTs were included according to inclusion and exclusion criteria. Reviewers independently performed data screening, data selection, data extraction, and risk of bias. Quality assessment was performed according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Weighted mean differences and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for continuous outcomes were calculated using random or fixed-effects models. This review is registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42022347803). Results: Of the 13 included articles, eight were on the use of systemic antibiotics and five on topical antibiotics. The results showed statistically significant improvement in periodontal status (probing depth, clinical attachment loss and bleeding on probing) at 6 months with systematic antibiotics use (PD-6M p = 0.04, BOP-6M p < 0.0001, CAL-6M p = 0.002). The improvement in PD with topical antibiotics was statistically significant at 1 month (p = 0.0006). However, there was no statistically significant improvement in periodontal status at 3 months with adjuvant systemic antibiotics. Conclusion: Antibiotics can improve the periodontal condition of diabetic patients with periodontitis to a certain extent. In clinical practice, it is necessary to comprehensively consider the balance of benefits and risks before deciding whether to use antibiotics. Systematic Review Registration: Identifier CRD42022347803, https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/.

Treatment of periodontitis for glycaemic control in people with diabetes mellitus

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.

Effect of periodontal treatments on blood pressure

BACKGROUND

An association has been hypothesized between periodontitis and hypertension. Periodontal therapy is believed to reduce systemic inflammatory mediators and increase endothelial function, thus having the potential to prevent and treat hypertension.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect and safety of different periodontal treatment modalities on blood pressure (BP) in people with chronic periodontitis.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) up to November 2020 in the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, seven other databases, and two clinical trials registries. We contacted the authors of relevant papers regarding further published and unpublished work.

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs and quasi-RCTs aiming to detect the effect of periodontal treatment on BP were eligible. Participants should have been diagnosed with chronic periodontitis and hypertension (or no hypertension if the study explored the preventive effect of periodontal treatment). Participants in the intervention group should have undergone subgingival scaling and root planing (SRP) and any other type of periodontal treatments, compared with either no periodontal treatment or alternative periodontal treatment in the control group.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane for study identification, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment. We used a formal pilot-tested data extraction form for data extraction, and the Cochrane risk of bias tool for risk of bias assessment. We planned the meta-analysis, test for heterogeneity, sensitivity analysis, and subgroup analysis. We assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE. The primary outcome was change in systolic BP (SBP) and diastolic BP (DBP).

MAIN RESULTS

We included eight RCTs. Five had low risk of bias, one had unclear risk of bias, and two had high risk of bias. Four trials compared periodontal treatment with no treatment. We found no evidence of a difference in the short-term change of SBP and DBP for people diagnosed with periodontitis and other cardiovascular diseases except hypertension (very low-certainty evidence). We found no evidence of a difference in long-term changes in SBP (mean difference [MD] -2.25 mmHg, 95% confidence interval [CI] -9.41 to 4.92; P = 0.54; studies = 2, participants = 108; low-certainty evidence) and DBP (MD -2.55 mmHg, 95% CI -6.90 to 1.80; P = 0.25; studies = 2, participants = 103; low-certainty evidence). Concerning people diagnosed with periodontitis, in the short term, two studies of low certainty reported no changes in SBP (MD -0.14 mmHg, 95% CI -4.05 to 3.77; P = 0.94; participants = 294) and DBP (MD -0.15 mmHg, 95% CI -2.47 to 2.17; P = 0.90; participants = 294), and we found no evidence of a difference in SBP and DBP over a long period based on low certainty of evidence. Three studies compared intensive periodontal treatment with supra-gingival scaling. We found no evidence of a difference in changes in SBP and DBP for any length of time in people diagnosed with periodontitis (very low-certainty evidence). In people diagnosed with periodontitis and hypertension, we found one study reporting a significant reduction in the short term in SBP (MD -11.20 mmHg, 95% CI -15.40 to -7.00; P < 0.001; participants = 101; moderate-certainty evidence) and DBP (MD -8.40 mmHg, 95% CI -12.19 to -4.61; P < 0.0001; participants = 101; moderate-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

We found no evidence of a difference of an impact of periodontal treatments on BP in most comparisons assessed in this review, and given the low certainty of evidence and the lack of relevant studies we could not draw conclusions about the effect of periodontal treatment on BP in people with chronic periodontitis. We found only one study suggesting that periodontal treatment may reduce SBP and DBP over a short period in people with hypertension and chronic periodontitis, but the certainty of evidence was moderate.

Treatment of periodontal disease for glycaemic control in people with diabetes mellitus

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.

Periodontal treatment could improve glycaemic control in diabetic patients

DATA SOURCES

Medline, Pascal, Embase, LILACS, the Cochrane Library, International Association of Dental Research Abstracts and Current Contents databases were searched and, in addition, a manual search was made of the bibliography of all pertinent articles. Unpublished articles were researched by contacting authors. No restrictions on language or type of article were applied in the literature search.

STUDY SELECTION

Two investigators reviewed the full texts independently. To be included in the meta-analysis, studies had to be original interventional studies, conducted on a human population in which subjects had both diabetes and periodontitis, and provided a numerical value for HbA1c (glycosylated haemoglobin level). Review articles and meta-analyses were excluded and only the most recent reference of a multiple publication was included.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

The two reviewers independently extracted data using a standardised data-extraction grid. Data from the controlled studies were combined to estimate the pooled differential variation of HbA1c between control and treatment groups, using the inverse-variance method. Both fixed and random-effects models were used to calculate the overall standardised mean difference (SMD). Statistical homogeneity across the studies was tested by Cochran's Q test. Potential publication bias was tested using the rank-correlation test for funnel-plot asymmetry.

RESULTS

Twenty-five studies, involving 976 subjects in total, were included in the present systematic review. Of these, nine studies, comprising 485 patients, were controlled trials and were included in the meta-analysis. The SMD in HbA1c with the treatment of periodontal disease was 0.46 [95% confidence interval (CI), 0.11-0.82]. These findings suggest that periodontal treatment could lead to a significant 0.79% (95% CI, 0.19-1.40) reduction in HbA1c level.

CONCLUSIONS

The present meta-analysis represents the best information available to date that addresses this issue, and suggests that periodontal treatment could improve glycaemic control. Nevertheless, these results should be viewed with caution because of a lack of robustness and deficiencies in the design of some of the studies included. A randomised controlled trial (RCT) with sufficient statistical power would help to confirm the results of this meta-analysis.

Efficacy of periodontal treatment on glycaemic control in diabetic patients: A meta-analysis of interventional studies

AIM

There is growing evidence that periodontal disease may favour the incidence or aggravation of diabetes and its complications. To investigate the issue, we conducted a meta-analysis of the effect of periodontal therapy on glycaemic control in diabetic patients.

METHODS

A literature search was carried out using seven databases (Medline, EMBASE, LILACS, The Cochrane Library, Pascal, IADR Abstracts and Current Contents), with no language restrictions. We followed the QUOROM-recommended standards for improving the quality of reporting meta-analyses of interventional studies.

RESULTS

Twenty-five studies, involving 976 subjects altogether, were included in the present systematic review. Of these, nine studies, involving a total of 485 patients, were controlled trials and were included in the meta-analysis. The standardized mean difference in HbA(1c) with the treatment of periodontal disease was 0.46 (95% CI: 0.11, 0.82). These findings suggest that periodontal treatment could lead to a significant 0.79% (95% CI: 0.19, 1.40) reduction in HbA(1c) level.

CONCLUSION

The present meta-analysis represents the best information available to date that addresses this issue, and suggests that periodontal treatment could improve glycaemic control. Nevertheless, these results need to be viewed with caution because of a lack of robustness, and deficiencies in the design of some of the studies included. A randomized controlled trial with sufficient statistical power would help to confirm the results of this meta-analysis.