Response to a letter to the editor addressing the publication "Effect of nonsurgical periodontal therapy and strict plaque control on preterm/low birth weight: a randomized controlled clinical trial"

Meta-regression Analysis of Study Heterogeneity for Systemic Outcomes after Periodontal Therapy

INTRODUCTION

The contribution of periodontal disease to adverse systemic consequences remains controversial. This analysis examined 2 well-investigated conditions independently and combined-adverse pregnancy outcomes and glycemic control for patients with diabetes-based on shared pathogenic mechanisms of periodontal infection and inflammation. It was proposed that inconsistencies in study design significantly contribute to outcome discrepancies found between periodontal intervention studies undergoing meta-analysis.

METHODS

Meta-analyses evaluating periodontal interventions on the rate of preterm birth and changes in glycated hemoglobin A1c in type 2 diabetes populations were conducted based on a systematic review of randomized controlled trials. Meta-regression covariates for exploring heterogeneity included sample size, level of medical management, and bias risk as moderator variables in a random-effects meta-regression.

RESULTS

Systematic review identified 17 studies of diabetes and 13 of pregnancy outcomes. Analyses of these studies identified 0.50% reduction in HbA1c and 0.78 odds ratio for preterm births. The heterogeneity associated with the models was high (I2 = 92.4 and I2 = 62.7%, respectively). The adjusted models evaluating each systemic condition separately accounted for 52.2% of the effect for diabetes and 81.4% for pregnancy outcome effects independently, and 63.5% collectively, across interventional studies.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review with meta-regression analysis of heterogeneity demonstrates that disparate results seen in randomized controlled trials of periodontal therapy affecting systemic outcomes may be explained in large part by study design, specifically stringency in consideration of medical management and sample size. The potential for confounding factors to influence outcomes remains a concern in understanding the implications of oral health on systemic conditions.

KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER STATEMENT

The findings of this study demonstrate that much of the benefits seen from periodontal therapy on adverse systemic outcomes for diabetes and pregnancy are due to limitations in study design.

Treating periodontal disease for preventing adverse birth outcomes in pregnant women

BACKGROUND

Periodontal disease has been linked with a number of conditions, such as cardiovascular disease, stroke, diabetes and adverse pregnancy outcomes, all likely through systemic inflammatory pathways. It is common in women of reproductive age and gum conditions tend to worsen during pregnancy. Some evidence from observational studies suggests that periodontal intervention may reduce adverse pregnancy outcomes. There is need for a comprehensive Cochrane review of randomised trials to assess the effect of periodontal treatment on perinatal and maternal health.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of treating periodontal disease in pregnant women in order to prevent or reduce perinatal and maternal morbidity and mortality.

SEARCH METHODS

Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 6 October 2016), Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (to 7 October 2016), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 9) in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 6 October 2016), Embase Ovid (1980 to 6 October 2016), and LILACS BIREME Virtual Health Library (Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Information database; 1982 to 6 October 2016). ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials on 6 October 2016. We placed no restrictions on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the effects of periodontal treatment in preventing or reducing perinatal and maternal morbidity and mortality. We excluded studies where obstetric outcomes were not reported.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts and extracted data using a prepiloted data extraction form. Missing data were obtained by contacting authors and risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane's 'Risk of bias' tool. Where appropriate, results of comparable trials were pooled and expressed as risk ratios (RR) or mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) . The random-effects model was used for pooling except where there was an insufficient number of studies. We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE.

MAIN RESULTS

There were 15 RCTs (n = 7161 participants) meeting our inclusion criteria. All the included studies were at high risk of bias mostly due to lack of blinding and imbalance in baseline characteristics of participants. The studies recruited pregnant women from prenatal care facilities who had periodontitis (14 studies) or gingivitis (1 study).The two main comparisons were: periodontal treatment versus no treatment during pregnancy and periodontal treatment versus alternative periodontal treatment. The head-to-head comparison between periodontal treatments assessed a more intensive treatment versus a less intensive one.Eleven studies compared periodontal treatment with no treatment during pregnancy. The meta-analysis shows no clear difference in preterm birth < 37 weeks (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.10; 5671 participants; 11 studies; low-quality evidence) between periodontal treatment and no treatment. There is low-quality evidence that periodontal treatment may reduce low birth weight < 2500 g (9.70% with periodontal treatment versus 12.60% without treatment; RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.95; 3470 participants; 7 studies).It is unclear whether periodontal treatment leads to a difference in preterm birth < 35 weeks (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.76; 2557 participants; 2 studies; ) and < 32 weeks (RR 1.35, 95% CI 0.78 to 2.32; 2755 participants; 3 studies), low birth weight < 1500 g (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.70; 2550 participants; 2 studies), perinatal mortality (including fetal and neonatal deaths up to the first 28 days after birth) (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.43; 5320 participants; 7 studies; very low-quality evidence), and pre-eclampsia (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.62; 2946 participants; 3 studies; very low-quality evidence). There is no evidence of a difference in small for gestational age (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.16; 3610 participants; 3 studies; low-quality evidence) when periodontal treatment is compared with no treatment.Four studies compared periodontal treatment with alternative periodontal treatment. Data pooling was not possible due to clinical heterogeneity. The outcomes reported were preterm birth < 37 weeks, preterm birth < 35 weeks, birth weight < 2500 g, birth weight < 1500 g and perinatal mortality (very low-quality evidence). It is unclear whether there is a difference in < 37 weeks, preterm birth < 35 weeks, birth weight < 2500 g, birth weight < 1500 g and perinatal mortality when different periodontal treatments are compared because the quality of evidence is very low.Maternal mortality and adverse effects of the intervention did not occur in any of the studies that reported on either of the outcomes.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

It is not clear if periodontal treatment during pregnancy has an impact on preterm birth (low-quality evidence). There is low-quality evidence that periodontal treatment may reduce low birth weight (< 2500 g), however, our confidence in the effect estimate is limited. There is insufficient evidence to determine which periodontal treatment is better in preventing adverse obstetric outcomes. Future research should aim to report periodontal outcomes alongside obstetric outcomes.