Oral health education and therapy reduces gingivitis during pregnancy

Interventions with pregnant women, new mothers and other primary caregivers for preventing early childhood caries

BACKGROUND

Dental caries, a common chronic disease of childhood, is associated with adverse health and economic consequences for infants and their families. Socioeconomically disadvantaged children have a higher risk of early childhood caries (ECC). This review updates one published in 2019.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of interventions undertaken with pregnant women, new mothers or other primary caregivers of infants in the first year of life, for preventing ECC (from birth to six years).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register, Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), CINAHL EBSCO, the US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register (clinicaltrials.gov) and WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (apps.who.int/trialsearch). The latest searches were run on 3 January, 2023.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing interventions with pregnant women, or new mothers and other primary caregivers of infants in the first year of life, against standard care, placebo or another intervention, reporting on a primary outcome: caries presence in primary teeth, dmfs (decayed, missing, filled primary surfaces index), or dmft (decayed, missing, filled teeth index), in children up to six years of age. Intervention types include clinical, oral health promotion/education (hygiene education, breastfeeding and other dietary advice) and policy or service.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed study eligibility, extracted data, assessed risk of bias, and assessed certainty of evidence (GRADE).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 23 RCTs (5 cluster-randomised), involving 25,953 caregivers (mainly mothers) and their children. Fifteen trials assessed oral health education/promotion interventions against standard care. Six trials assessed a clinical intervention for mother dentition, against placebo, or a different type of clinical intervention. Two trials assessed oral health/education promotion plus clinical intervention (for mother's dentition) against standard care. At most, five trials (maximum of 1326 children and 130 mothers) contributed data to any comparison. Enamel-only caries were included in the diagnosis of caries in some studies. For many trials, the risk of bias was unclear due to lack of methodological details reported. In thirteen trials, participants were socioeconomically disadvantaged. No trial indicated receiving funding that was likely to have influenced their results. Oral health education/promotion interventions Child diet and feeding practice advice versus standard care: We observed a probable 15 per cent reduced risk of caries presence in primary teeth with the intervention (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.97; 3 trials; 782 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and there may be a slightly lower mean dmfs (MD -0.29, 95% CI -0.58 to 0; 2 trials; 757 participants; low-certainty evidence); however, the evidence is very uncertain regarding the difference between groups in mean dmft (MD -0.90, 95% CI -1.85 to 0.05; 1 trial; 340 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Breastfeeding promotion and support versus standard care: We observed little or no difference between groups in the risk of caries presence in primary teeth (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.03; 2 trials; 1148 participants; low-certainty evidence) and in mean dmft (MD -0.12, 95% CI -0.59 to 0.36; 2 trials; 652 participants; low-certainty evidence). dmfs was not reported. Child diet advice compared with standard care: We are very uncertain about the effect on the risk of caries presence in primary teeth (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.34 to 3.37; 1 trial; 148 participants; very low-certainty evidence). dmfs and dmft were not reported. Oral hygiene, child diet and feeding practice advice versus standard care: The evidence is very uncertain about the effect on the risk of caries presence in primary teeth (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.50 to 1.07; 5 trials; 1326 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and there maybe little to no difference in mean dmfs (MD -0.87, 95% CI -2.18 to 0.43; 2 trials; 657 participants; low-certainty evidence) and mean dmft (MD -0.30, 95% CI -0.96 to 0.36; 1 trial; 187 participants; low-certainty evidence). High-dose versus low-dose vitamin D supplementation during pregnancy: We are very uncertain about the effect on risk of caries presence in primary teeth (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.41; 1 trial; 496 participants; very low-certainty evidence). dmfs and dmft were not reported. Clinical interventions (for mother dentition) Chlorhexidine (CHX, a commonly prescribed antiseptic agent) or iodine-NaF application and prophylaxis versus placebo: We are very uncertain regarding the difference in risk of caries presence in primary teeth between antimicrobial and placebo treatment for mother dentition (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.19; 3 trials; 479 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No trial reported dmfs or dmft. Xylitol compared with CHX antimicrobial treatment: We are very uncertain about the effect on caries presence in primary teeth (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.39; 1 trial, 96 participants; very low-certainty evidence), but we observed there may be a lower mean dmft with xylitol (MD -2.39; 95% CI -4.10 to -0.68; 1 trial, 113 participants; low-certainty evidence). No trial reported dmfs. Oral health education/promotion plus clinical interventions (for mother dentition) Diet and feeding practice advice for infants and young children plus basic dental care for mothers compared with standard care: We are very uncertain about the effect on risk of caries presence in primary teeth (RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.05 to 3.95; 2 trials, 324 participants; very low-certainty evidence) or on mean dmft (1 study, not estimable). No trial reported dmfs. No trials evaluated policy or health service interventions.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is moderate-certainty evidence that providing advice on diet and feeding to pregnant women, mothers or other caregivers with children up to the age of one year probably leads to a slightly reduced risk of early childhood caries (ECC). The remaining evidence is low to very-low certainty and is insufficient for determining which, if any, other intervention types and features may be effective for preventing ECC, and in which settings. Large, high-quality RCTs of oral health education/promotion, clinical, and policy and service access interventions, are warranted to determine the effects and relative effects of different interventions and inform practice. We have identified 13 ongoing studies. Future studies should consider if and how effects are modified by intervention features and participant characteristics (including socioeconomic status).

Association between birth-related factors and periodontitis in women: Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2013-2018

AIM

Adult women experience several changes in physiological status, such as pregnancy and childbirth, during their life cycle. This study analyses the association between birth-related factors (the number of childbirths, abortions and miscarriages) and periodontitis using data from the Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, which represents Korean adults.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study used data from Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey VI and VII (2013-2018) and included 10,072 women 19 years or older, with no missing data on the variables assessed. Periodontitis was defined according to the Community Periodontal Index (CPI) criteria. Multiple logistic regression analysis, adjusting for age, household income, education, alcohol consumption, smoking, stress, body mass index, waist circumference, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, an oral examination within 1 year, daily tooth brushing frequency, hygiene products and self-perceived oral health as identified via logistic regression analyses, was performed to determine the association between birth-related variables and periodontitis.

RESULTS

In the crude model, the odds ratio (OR) showed a significantly increased risk of periodontitis (CPI ≥ 3) and severe periodontitis (CPI = 4) based on the number of childbirths, abortions and miscarriages (p < .05). After covariate adjustment, periodontitis (CPI ≥ 3) was associated with the number of childbirths (1: OR = 1.92; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.47-2.50; 2: OR = 2.03; 95% CI: 1.57-2.61; ≥3: OR = 2.11; 95% CI: 1.60-2.78). Furthermore, severe periodontitis (CPI = 4) was also associated with the number of childbirths (1: OR = 2.33; 95% CI: 1.24-4.38; 2: OR = 2.99; 95% CI: 1.62-5.52; ≥3: OR = 3.34; 95% CI: 1.79-6.21).

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of this large-scale, nationally representative study suggest that the number of childbirths is associated with the severity of periodontitis. However, the relationship between the number of abortions and miscarriages and periodontitis (CPI ≥ 3) or severe periodontitis (CPI = 4) is not significant.

Evaluation of an advanced oral hygiene regimen on maternity outcomes in a randomized multicenter clinical trial (Oral Hygiene and Maternity Outcomes Multicenter Study)

BACKGROUND

During pregnancy, dental plaque-induced gingivitis prevalence and subsequent risk of periodontal disease increases substantially, as a consequence of both inadequate oral hygiene and changes in sex steroid hormone levels. Although maternal periodontal disease has been associated with adverse pregnancy outcomes, including spontaneous preterm birth, previous clinical trials involving mechanical debridement (eg, scaling and root planing) to remove plaque biofilm have not yielded decreased rates of preterm birth.

OBJECTIVE

We hypothesized that an advanced oral hygiene program, including an antibacterial regimen coupled with a power toothbrush and hygiene instruction, may improve the periodontal milieu and reduce the rate of spontaneous preterm birth. Therefore, we conducted a clinical trial of obstetrical patients with moderate-to-severe gingivitis who were randomized to an advanced oral hygiene program vs usual oral hygiene care, and the primary obstetrical outcome compared between the treatment groups was gestational age at delivery.

STUDY DESIGN

Obstetrical patients with singleton pregnancies between 8 and 24 weeks' gestation were screened by trained dentists at 2 clinical sites for moderate-to-severe gingivitis (>30 intraoral sites with gingival bleeding on probing). Eligible participants were randomized to an advanced oral hygiene regimen, including antibacterial mouth wash, dental floss, antibacterial toothpaste, a power toothbrush, and intensive oral hygiene education vs standard oral home care instructions and regimen. The primary obstetrical outcome assessed was gestational age at delivery. The overall primary (dental) outcomes were gingival index, bleeding sites, and pocket depth (reported elsewhere). Secondary obstetrical outcomes included birthweight and incidence of preterm birth at <37 weeks' gestation. Regression models were utilized and included factors such as treatment group, gestational age at enrollment, preterm birth history, and potential markers of health disparities (ie, education, employment status).

RESULTS

A total of 817 obstetrical patients underwent dental screening at the 2 sites, 789 were identified with moderate-to-severe gingivitis, 746 were randomized, and birth outcomes were available for 613 of the study participants. The gestational age at delivery was 2 days earlier in the control group (P=.040), but the clinical significance of this finding was limited (39.13 vs 38.85 weeks). Overall rates of spontaneous preterm birth <37 weeks and <34 weeks were not statistically different between the 2 treatment groups (7.0% advanced oral hygiene regimen vs 10.3% controls, OR=1.63 (0.90-3.00), P=.11; and 2.3% vs 3.9%, OR=1.88 (0.71-4.98), P=.20, respectively). However, we observed lower rates of spontaneous preterm birth among unemployed participants with less favorable socioeconomic status (4.7% advanced oral hygiene regimen vs 16.0% controls, OR=4.04 (1.34-15.12), P=.01).

CONCLUSION

An advanced oral hygiene program may reduce the risk of spontaneous preterm birth among pregnant patients with moderate-to-severe gingivitis and health disparities. This is the same group that may be at highest risk of poor dental hygiene and preterm birth.

A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial of Prenatal Oral Hygiene Education in Pregnancy-Associated Gingivitis

INTRODUCTION

Research shows there is a significant increase in gingival inflammation during pregnancy. This study was conducted to determine if an oral health intervention (OHI), including oral hygiene education delivered by nurse-led staff and an advanced over-the-counter (OTC) oral home care regimen, improved gingival inflammation in pregnant women with moderate-to-severe gingivitis compared with a standard oral hygiene control group.

METHODS

This was a multicenter, randomized, controlled, single-masked, parallel group clinical trial conducted in obstetrics clinics of 2 medical centers. A total of 750 pregnant women between 8 and 24 weeks of pregnancy with at least 20 natural teeth and moderate-to-severe gingivitis (>30 intraoral bleeding sites) were enrolled. Participants were randomized to either the OHI group, which included oral hygiene instructions supplemented with an educational video and advanced OTC antibacterial/mechanical oral hygiene products, or the control group receiving oral hygiene instructions and standard products. Both groups received oral hygiene instructions from nurse-led staff. Experienced, masked examiners measured whole mouth gingival index (GI) and periodontal probing depths (PDs) at baseline and months 1, 2, and 3.

RESULTS

Participants enrolled in this study presented with moderate-to-severe gingivitis at baseline. Both the OHI and control groups exhibited significant reductions in GI (P < .001) and PD (P < .03) from baseline that persisted throughout the study period. The OHI group exhibited modest, yet statistically greater, reductions in GI (P ≤ .044) compared with the control at all time points. The reduction in PD directionally favored the OHI group, but between-group differences were small (<0.03 mm) and not statistically significant (P > .18).

DISCUSSION

Significant gingivitis was prevalent among participants in this study and identifies an opportunity to improve gingival health during pregnancy by providing oral health education during the course of prenatal care when coupled with an advanced OTC oral hygiene regimen.

Oral Health and Knowledge among Postpartum Women

Oral health behavior and risks during pregnancy and after birth affect the oral health of babies and toddlers. We examined the oral and gingival health and caries prevalence of 150 postpartum women shortly after giving birth and assessed their knowledge of oral hygiene using a questionnaire. We also compared the oral health knowledge of nulliparous and multiparous women. Although most participants (98.0%) understood the importance of maintaining oral hygiene in children, their overall knowledge of oral health was medium-low, regardless of the number of previous pregnancies. Only 4.6% of women received oral health advice from their obstetrician during their pregnancy. Most participants had a high gingival index score, which correlated with dental pain during pregnancy. In contrast, the number of decayed, missing and filled teeth was significantly lower in first-time mothers. There was a statistically significant positive correlation between women who regularly visit their dentist and those who regularly take their children to the dentist. Expecting mothers should be educated about their own oral health and that of their developing fetus and children. Raising awareness among obstetricians with regards to this topic may be an effective way to achieve this.

Health Education about Lifestyle-Related Risk Factors in Gynecological and Obstetric Care: A Qualitative Study of Healthcare Providers' Views in Germany

OBJECTIVE

Lifestyle-related risk factors (LRRFs) during pregnancy and lactation are associated with a range of health problems. However, previous studies have shown a large knowledge gap among pregnant women regarding the effects of LRRFs. This study aimed to investigate the role of health education about LRRFs during pregnancy and lactation in gynecological and obstetric care from healthcare providers' (HCPs) point of view.

METHODS

To explore the views of healthcare providers, a qualitative study was performed. In 2019, 22 in-depth interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of 9 gynecologists and 13 midwives. Participants came from different inpatient and outpatient care settings and from rural, urban, and socially deprived areas in southern Germany. All the interviews were tape-recorded and transcribed verbatim. A combined inductive and deductive approach was applied for data analysis.

RESULTS

Interviews with HCPs showed that they were aware of the possible impacts of LRRFs during pregnancy and lactation. They noted the importance of action, specifically among women with low socioeconomic status (SES), migrants, and women with a concerning medical history or other specific needs. However, the interviews showed that, at present, there is no standardized practice of educating patients on LRRFs in routine care. This was attributed to a lack of guidelines and time, unfavorable regulations, and undefined responsibilities. The priority of health education is lower in inpatient healthcare settings as compared to outpatient healthcare settings. HCPs apply a demand-driven healthcare approach, focusing on a woman's medical history, needs, and personal circumstances. HCPs voiced the importance of implementing pre-conception education across different healthcare settings, garnering support from other health organizations, and setting out clearly defined responsibilities among HCPs.

CONCLUSIONS

This qualitative study explored HCPs' perspectives on health education about LRRFs during pregnancy and lactation. The results from this study emphasize the need for a central strategy for health education about LRRFs during pregnancy and lactation in gynecological and obstetric care.

Oral Hygiene Practices and Awareness of Pregnant Women about the Effects of Periodontal Disease on Pregnancy Outcomes

Objectives

Adverse pregnancy outcomes, such as preterm low birth weight (PTLBW), is a severe public health issue that needs to be dealt with by educating the general female population, dental practitioners, and gynecologist. One of the major contributing factors is periodontal disease, which accounts for about 18.2% of all PTLBW cases worldwide, and prevention of the same could reduce the occurrence of PTLBW babies. This study aimed to assess the oral hygiene practices and awareness of pregnant women about the effect of periodontal disease on pregnancy outcomes.

Methods

A descriptive cross-sectional study was conducted where 400 pregnant women after consent were requested to complete an anonymous, self-administered, structured questionnaire with twenty-one close-ended questions.

Results

Only 5% of participants in this study reported that gum diseases during pregnancy lead to preterm labor or low birth weight babies. About 70.7% of pregnant women mentioned that they did not use any interdental cleaning aids, and 54.5% did not use mouthwashes.

Conclusion

Tooth brushing practices among pregnant women were good; however, there was an overall lack in the use of adjunctive aids. The study highlighted a deficiency in the awareness of pregnant women regarding the association between periodontal disease and adverse pregnancy outcomes.

Prevalence of gingivitis and risk factors among pregnant women from Acapulco, Guerrero: a cross-sectional study

Introduction

Gingivitis is a condition that has been associated with an exaggerated inflammatory response of the gums to oral biofilm, attributed to the secretion of hormones during pregnancy.

Objectives

To estimate the prevalence of gingivitis and identify associated risk factors among pregnant women in a private medical clinic from Acapulco, Guerrero.

Material and methods

Cross-sectional study in a convenience sample of 92 pregnant women, during the period from January to March 2020. A self-administered questionnaire collected sociodemographic data, economic income, oral hygiene habits and personal pathological history. The periodontium was evaluated based on the new classification of gingival health and gingivitis induced by oral biofilm on six representative teeth. Multivariate analysis identified factors associated with gingivitis using the odds ratio and its 95% confidence interval as an estimate of the strength of association with CIETmap statistical software.

Results

The prevalence of gingivitis was 60% (55/92). Two factors remained in the final model of the multivariate analysis. The main associated strength was found in the variable of not using oral hygiene aids (ORa= 6.76; CI 95%= 2.01-22.78). The other variable was not attending dental visits (ORa= 3.74; CI 95%= 1.44-9.73).

Conclusion

Gingivitis affected about six out of ten pregnant women. Knowing the risk factors, it will be important to reinforce health education strategies and the importance of clinical monitoring during pregnancy.

Periodontology and pregnancy: An overview of biomedical and epidemiological evidence

Women are particularly susceptible to developing gingival problems during pregnancy. In addition, periodontal disease in pregnant women may lead to adverse outcomes for both mother and infant, which have serious clinical and public health implications. Both scenarios have been extensively researched, helping to bring attention to pregnant women as an important and vulnerable population as it concerns periodontal health. The increase in gingival inflammation caused by hormonal changes in pregnant women is undisputed and has been studied and documented since the 1960s, although the exact etiology is not fully understood. The relationship between periodontal disease during pregnancy and adverse pregnancy outcomes is less substantiated, because of conflicting evidence. This review of the biomedical and epidemiologic literature provides an overview of both sides of this relationship and examines the potential mechanisms for developing periodontal disease during pregnancy and the proposed mechanisms by which periodontal disease leads to adverse pregnancy outcomes.

Pregnant women's perspectives on integrating preventive oral health in prenatal care

BACKGROUND

Oral diseases are considered a silent epidemic including among pregnant women. Given the prevalence of oral conditions among pregnant women and the reported association with adverse pregnancy outcomes, there have been suggestions for the inclusion of preventive oral care in routine prenatal care. However, due to the different administrative and funding structure for oral health and prenatal care in Canada, progress towards this integration has been slow. Our study sought to qualitatively explore the views of pregnant women in British Columbia (BC) on the strategies for integrating preventive oral health care into prenatal care services.

METHODS

A qualitative approach was utilized involving semi-structured interviews with fourteen (14) purposefully selected pregnant women in Vancouver and Surrey, BC. The interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. The transcripts were analyzed using an inductive thematic approach. Study validity was ensured via memoing, field-notes, and member checking.

RESULTS

Interviews ranged from 28 to 65 min producing over 140 pages of transcripts. Analysis resulted in three major themes: oral health experiences during pregnancy, perspectives on integration and integrated prenatal oral care, and strategies for addressing prenatal oral health care. A majority of participants were supportive of integrating preventive oral care in routine prenatal services, with referrals identified as a critical strategy. Oral health education was recognized as important before, during, and after pregnancy; oral health assessments should therefore be included in the prenatal care checklist. Limited funding was acknowledged as a barrier to oral health care access, which may explain why few participants visited their dentists during pregnancy. Interprofessional education surfaced as a bridge to provide prenatal oral health education.

CONCLUSION

Pregnant women interviewed in this study support the inclusion of educational and preventive oral care during prenatal care, although their views differed on how such inclusion can be achieved in BC. They advocated the establishment of a referral system as an acceptable strategy for providing integrated prenatal oral health care.

Oral microbiome and pregnancy: A bidirectional relationship

The oral cavity contains the second most complex microbial population within the human body, with more than 700 bacterial organisms. Recent advances in Next Generation Sequencing technology have unraveled the complexities of the oral microbiome and provided valuable insights into its role in health and disease. The human oral microbiome varies dramatically during the different stages of life, including pregnancy. The total viable microbial counts in pregnant women are known to be higher compared to non-pregnant women, especially in the first trimester of pregnancy. A balanced oral microbiome is vital for a healthy pregnancy, as perturbations in the oral microbiome composition can contribute to pregnancy complications. On the other hand, physiological changes and differences in hormonal levels during pregnancy, increase susceptibility to various oral diseases such as gingivitis and periodontitis. A growing body of evidence supports the link between the composition of the oral microbiome and adverse pregnancy outcomes such as preterm birth, preeclampsia, low birth weight among others. This review aims to summarize the dynamics of oral microbiome during pregnancy and to discuss the relationship between a dysbiotic oral microbiome and pregnancy complications.

Oral Status in Pregnant Women from Post-Industrial Areas of Upper Silesia in Reference to Occurrence of: Preterm Labors, Low Birth Weight and Type of Labor

Increased levels of steroid hormones, action of local irritants and the lack of proper hygiene measures are of great importance in the development of dental caries, gingivitis and inflammation of the periodontal area in pregnant women. The aim of the study was to evaluate the state of oral hygiene and the periodontal area is such a population and assess the effectiveness of performed hygiene treatments and analyse changes in hygiene habits after oral hygiene instructions. The study was performed in two parts on a group of 50 pregnant women. The first part took place between the 14th and 17th week of pregnancy. The control study was conducted between the 27th and 30th week of pregnancy. Patients were subjected to a dental examination. Poor oral hygiene was observed among the examined patients. After the first examination, oral hygiene instruction was provided to 25 randomly selected pregnant patients. The effect of periodontal diseases on the time of labor was observed. Oral hygiene instructions significantly affected the state of the periodontal area of pregnant women for whom it was performed. It was confirmed that the advancement of pregnancy influences deterioration of the periodontium and also term of childbirth. Undoubtedly, pregnant women receive insufficient dental care. Priority should be given to dental care education of for pregnant women and alleviating the impact of oral diseases on the organism of a pregnant woman.

Effectiveness of a family-centered behavioral and educational counselling approach to improve periodontal health of pregnant women: a randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Poor oral hygiene and high hormone levels during pregnancy can lead to a deterioration in periodontal health. This study assessed the effectiveness of a family-centered behavioral and educational counselling program on improving the periodontal health of women during pregnancy and postpartum.

METHODS

A randomized controlled trial was conducted among pregnant women (10th-22nd gestational week) and their husbands. Participating families were randomized into test and control groups. Intervention in the test group included explanation of oral health education (OHE) pamphlets, oral hygiene instruction, individualized feedback, and proposed solutions to overcome barriers in self-care. Reinforcements were implemented in the 3rd trimester of pregnancy and six months postpartum. In the control group, only OHE pamphlets were distributed. The assessed outcomes were bleeding on probing (BOP), periodontal pocket (Poc), loss of clinical attachment (LoA), and Visible Plaque Index (VPI). The data collection was carried out at baseline (T₀), in the 32nd gestational week (T₁), and 12 months postpartum (T₂).

RESULTS

Altogether 589 pregnant women were recruited, and 369 attended all three visits (test:188; control:181). In the test group, the mean VPI score at T₀ was 0.19, which decreased to 0.14 at T₁ and 0.15 at T₂. In the control group, the mean VPI decreased from 0.19 at T₀ to 0.16 at T₁, but increased to 0.22 at T₂. A main effect of time and intervention and an interaction between time and intervention were detected (all p < 0.05), indicating that the intervention effect differed between T₁ and T₂. The test group showed a significantly greater decrease over time than the control group did. Similarly, the mean BOP% decreased more significantly over time in the test group (T₀:57%, T₁:46%, T₂:35%) than in the control group (T₀:58%, T₁:52%, T₂:46%). For Poc and LoA, there were improvements in both study groups at 12 months postpartum, compared with during pregnancy (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Providing family-centered, behavioral, and educational counselling to pregnant women at an early stage of pregnancy and with reinforcements can improve their oral hygiene and reduce gingival inflammation. The effect can be sustained over an extended period and is greater than that of distributing oral health leaflets alone.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov , #NCT02937194. Registered 18 October 2016. Retrospectively registered, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02937194?cond=Family-centered+oral+health+promotion+for+new+parents+and+their+infants&draw=2&rank=1.

Periodontal disease and adverse pregnancy outcomes

Periodontal diseases are considered not only to affect tooth-supporting tissues but also to have a cause-and-effect relationship with various systemic diseases and conditions, such as adverse pregnancy outcomes. Mechanistic studies provide strong evidence that periodontal pathogens can translocate from infected periodontium to the feto-placental unit and initiate a metastatic infection. However, the extent and mechanisms by which metastatic inflammation and injury contribute to adverse pregnancy outcomes still remain unclear. The presence of oral bacteria in the placenta of women with term gestation further complicates our understanding of the biology behind the role of periodontal pathogens in pregnancy outcomes. Epidemiological studies demonstrate many methodological inconsistencies and flaws that render comparisons difficult and conclusions insecure. Therefore, despite the fact that a number of prospective studies show a positive association between periodontal diseases and various adverse pregnancy outcomes, the evidence behind it is still weak. Future well-designed explanatory studies are necessary to verify this relationship and, if present, determine its magnitude. The majority of high-quality randomized controlled trials reveal that nonsurgical periodontal therapy during the second trimester of gestation does not improve pregnancy outcomes. From a biological standpoint, this can be partially explained by the fact that therapy rendered at the fourth to sixth months of pregnancy is too late to prevent placental colonization by periodontal pathogens and consequently incapable of affecting pathogen-induced injury at the feto-placental unit. Thus, interventions during the preconception period may be more meaningful. With the increase in our understanding on the potential association between periodontal disease and adverse pregnancy outcomes, it is clear that dental practitioners should provide periodontal treatment to pregnant women that is safe for both the mother and the unborn child. Although there is not enough evidence that the anti-infective therapy alters pregnancy outcomes, it improves health-promoting behavior and periodontal condition, which in turn advance general health and risk factor control.

Interventions with pregnant women, new mothers and other primary caregivers for preventing early childhood caries

BACKGROUND

Dental caries is one of the most common chronic diseases of childhood and is associated with adverse health and economic consequences for infants and their families. Socioeconomically disadvantaged children have a higher risk of early childhood caries (ECC).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of interventions with pregnant women, new mothers or other primary caregivers of infants in the first year of life, for preventing ECC (from birth to six years of age).

SEARCH METHODS

Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 14 January 2019), Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group's Trials Register (to 22 January 2019), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (Cochrane Register of Studies, to 14 January 2019), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 14 January 2019), Embase Ovid (1980 to 14 January 2019) and CINAHL EBSCO (1937 to 14 January 2019). The US National Institutes of Health Trials Registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) and World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on language or publication status.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing one or more interventions with pregnant women, mothers, or other caregivers of infants in the first year of life (intervention types included clinical, oral health education/promotion such as hygiene education, breastfeeding and other dietary advice, and policy or health service), versus standard care or placebo or another intervention. For inclusion, trials had to report at least one caries outcome.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed trial eligibility, extracted data, assessed risk of bias, and assessed certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 17 RCTs (4 cluster-randomised), involving 23,732 caregivers (mainly mothers) and their children. Eleven RCTs assessed four oral health education/promotion interventions against standard care: child diet advice, child diet and feeding practice advice, breastfeeding promotion and support, and oral hygiene with child diet and feeding practice advice. Six trials assessed clinical interventions in mother's dentition, four trials chlorhexidine (CHX, a commonly prescribed antiseptic agent) or iodine-NaF application and prophylaxis versus placebo, and two trials xylitol against CHX or CHX + xylitol. At most, three trials (maximum of 1148 children and 130 mothers) contributed data to any comparison. For many trials, risk of bias was judged unclear due to lack of methodological details reported, and there was high risk of attrition bias in some trials. None of the included trials indicated receiving funding that is likely to have influenced their results. The trials were performed in high-, middle- and low-income countries. In nine trials, participants were socioeconomically disadvantaged. For child diet and feeding practice advice versus standard care, we observed a probable 15 per cent reduced risk of caries presence in primary teeth with the intervention (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.75 to 0.97; 3 trials; 782 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and there may be a lower mean dmfs (decayed, missing, filled primary surfaces) score (MD -0.29, 95% CI -0.58 to 0; 2 trials; 757 participants; low-certainty evidence); however, we are uncertain regarding the difference between the groups in mean dmft (decayed, missing, filled teeth) score (MD -0.90, 95% CI -1.85 to 0.05; 1 trial; 340 participants; very low-certainty evidence). For breastfeeding promotion and support versus standard care, we observed that there may be little or no a difference between groups in the risk of caries presence in primary teeth (RR 0.96, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.03; 2 trials; 1148 participants; low-certainty evidence), or mean dmft score (MD -0.12, 95% CI -0.59 to 0.36; 2 trials; 652 participants; low-certainty evidence). Dmfs was not reported for this comparison. We are uncertain whether child diet advice only compared with standard care reduces risk of caries presence in primary teeth (RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.34 to 3.37; 1 trial; 148 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Dmfs and dmft were not reported for this comparison. For oral hygiene, child diet and feeding practice advice versus standard care, we observed little or no reduced risk of caries presence in primary teeth (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.75 to 1.10; 2 trials; 365 participants; low-certainty evidence), and are uncertain regarding difference between the groups in mean dmfs score (MD -0.99, 95% CI -2.45 to 0.47; 1 trial; 187 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and dmft score (MD -0.30, 95% CI -0.96 to 0.36; 1 trial; 187 participants; very low-certainty evidence). We observed there may be little or no difference in risk of caries presence in primary teeth between antimicrobial and placebo treatment in mother's dentition (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.80 to 1.19; 3 trials; 479 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No trials assessing this comparison reported dmfs or dmft. For xylitol compared with CHX antimicrobial treatment, we observed there may be a lower mean dmft score with xylitol (MD -2.39; 95% CI -4.10 to -0.68; 1 trial, 113 participants; low-certainty evidence); however, we are uncertain regarding the difference between groups in caries presence in primary teeth (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.39; 1 trial, 96 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Neither trial evaluating this comparison reported dmfs. No trials assessed a health policy or service intervention.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Moderate-certainty evidence suggests that providing advice on diet and feeding to pregnant women, mothers or other caregivers with children up to the age of one year probably leads to a slightly reduced risk of early childhood caries (ECC). The remaining evidence is low to very low certainty and is insufficient for determining which, if any, other interventions types and features may be effective for preventing ECC. Large, high-quality RCTs of oral health education/promotion, clinical, and policy and service access interventions, are warranted to determine effects and relative effects of different interventions and inform practice. We have identified 12 studies currently in progress. Those designing future studies should describe the intervention components, setting and participants, consider if and how effects are modified by intervention features and participant characteristics, and adopt a consistent approach to measuring and reporting ECC.

Population-Based Estimation of Dental Caries and Periodontal Disease Rates of Gravid and Recently Postpartum Women in Lilongwe, Malawi

Objectives  The objective of this study was to determine the rate of dental caries and periodontal disease among gravid and recently postpartum women at five delivery centers within and surrounding Lilongwe, Malawi. Study Design  We partnered with obstetric specialists, community health workers, and dentists to perform dental history interviews and dental examinations during the study period from December 2012 to May 2014. Dental examinations were performed according to World Health Organization standards to assess periodontal and oral health status. Results  Among the 387 gravid and recently postpartum women, the rate of dental caries was 69.3% and the rate of composite dental disease (caries and periodontal disease) was 76.7%. The majority (69.5%) of women examined had a decayed-missing-filled (DMF) index greater than or equal to one; the average DMF Index was 2.48. The majority of women had never seen a dentist (62.8%). However, most did perform oral hygiene, two or more times per day (90.2%); most women reported brushing with toothpaste (88.1%). Conclusion  When assessing this population for dental caries and periodontal disease, the rate of dental disease was high. Therefore, this may be an ideal setting to test for impactful interventions aimed at reducing caries and periodontal disease.

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.

Educational intervention to improve oral health beliefs and behaviors during pregnancy: a randomized-controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Oral and dental health is one of the most important aspects of public health, which becomes more important during pregnancy. Health education may effectively prevent a considerable percent of oral and dental diseases.

OBJECTIVE

This study was designed to evaluate the effects of an oral and dental health educational intervention during pregnancy on the beliefs and behaviors of pregnant women on oral and dental health.

PARTICIPANTS AND METHODS

In this randomized-controlled clinical trial, 160 pregnant women were allocated randomly to intervention and control groups (80 in each group). The intervention group received six education sessions over 3 weeks on oral health issues, whereas the control group received no education. Beliefs and behaviors of pregnant women on oral health were evaluated before, immediately, and 2 months after the educational intervention using a self-administered questionnaire containing 13 Likert scale belief statements and nine practice items.

RESULTS

There were no significant differences in the scores of behaviors between the two groups, whereas the scores of beliefs of the educated group were lower than the controls at baseline. The scores of beliefs and behaviors were significantly higher in the educated group than the controls immediately and 2 months after the education program (P<0.05).

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The results of the present study indicated the positive effects of oral health training during pregnancy in promoting the beliefs and behaviors of pregnant women on oral health. More attention to oral and dental education programs is recommended during pregnancy.

Sex Hormones Enhance Gingival Inflammation without Affecting IL-1β and TNF-α in Periodontally Healthy Women during Pregnancy

Hormones (progesterone and estradiol) change greatly during pregnancy; however, the mechanism of hormonal changes on gingival inflammation is still unclear. This study is to evaluate the effects of hormonal changes during pregnancy on gingival inflammation and interleukin-1β (IL-1β) and tumor necrosis factor-α (TNF-α) in gingival crevicular fluid (GCF). 30 periodontally healthy pregnant women were evaluated in the first, second, and third trimesters. 20 periodontally healthy nonpregnant women were evaluated twice (once per subsequent month). Clinical parameters including probing pocket depth (PPD), bleeding index (BI), gingival index (GI), clinical attachment level (CAL), and plaque index (PLI) were recorded. GCF levels of IL-1β and TNF-α and serum levels of progesterone and estradiol were measured. From the data, despite low PLI, BI and GI increased significantly during pregnancy; however, no significant changes in PLI, CAL, IL-1β, or TNF-α GCF levels were observed. Although IL-1β, not TNF-α, was higher in pregnant group than in nonpregnant group, they showed no correlation with serum hormone levels during pregnancy. GI and BI showed significant positive correlation with serum hormone levels during pregnancy. This study suggests that sex hormone increase during pregnancy might have an effect on inflammatory status of gingiva, independent of IL-1β and TNF-α in GCF.

Increased infection with key periodontal pathogens during gestational diabetes mellitus

AIM

Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM), gingivitis, infection with specific periodontal pathogens and systemic inflammation each increase the risk for poor pregnancy outcome. We set out to monitor the interactions of gingivitis and GDM with respect to oral infection and the systemic inflammatory burden.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Four case-control groups (n = 117) were recruited, (1) No gingivitis, No GDM (n = 27); (2) Gingivitis, No GDM (n = 31); (3) No gingivitis, GDM (n = 21); and (4) Gingivitis, GDM (n = 38). Oral infection with three key periodontal pathogens was determined by PCR. Systemic inflammation was determined by quantification of CRP by EIA.

RESULTS

Gingivitis during pregnancy was associated with oral infection with Porphyromonas gingivalis, Filifactor alocis and Treponema denticola and combinations thereof (all p < 0.01). GDM was also associated with increased infection with individual and multiple oral pathogens (all p < 0.05). Gingivitis during pregnancy led to a 325% increase in systemic CRP (mean, 2495 versus 8116 ng/ml, p < 0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

Diabetes and gingivitis act in concert to increase risk biomarkers for poor pregnancy outcome.

Effect of intensive oral hygiene regimen during pregnancy on periodontal health, cytokine levels, and pregnancy outcomes: a pilot study

BACKGROUND

Data are limited on the potential effect of intensive oral hygiene regimens and periodontal therapy during pregnancy on periodontal health, gingival crevicular fluid (GCF) and serum cytokines, and pregnancy outcomes.

METHODS

A clinical trial was conducted on 120 community-dwelling, 16- to 35-year-old pregnant women at 16 to 24 weeks of gestation. Each participant presented with clinical evidence of generalized, moderate-to-severe gingivitis. Oral hygiene products were provided, together with instructions for an intensive daily regimen of hygiene practices. Non-surgical therapy was provided at baseline. Oral examinations were completed at baseline and again at 4 and 8 weeks. In addition, samples of blood and GCF were collected at baseline and week 8. Mean changes in clinical variables and GCF and serum cytokine levels (interleukin [IL]-1β, IL-6, tumor necrosis factor [TNF]-α) between baseline and week 8 were calculated using paired t test. Pregnancy outcomes were recorded at parturition.

RESULTS

RESULTS indicated a statistically significant reduction in all clinical variables (P <0.0001) and decreased levels of TNF-α (P = 0.0076) and IL-1β (P = 0.0098) in GCF during the study period. The rate of preterm births (<37 weeks of gestation) was 6.7% (P = 0.113) and low birth weight (<2,500 g) was 10.2% (P = 1.00).

CONCLUSIONS

Among the population studied, intensive instructions and non-surgical periodontal therapy provided during 8 weeks at early pregnancy resulted in decreased gingival inflammation and a generalized improvement in periodontal health. Large-scale, randomized, controlled studies are needed to substantiate these findings.