Is There a Relationship Between Periodontal Disease and Causes of Death? A Cross Sectional Study

Effects of periodontal disease on glycemic control, complications, and incidence of diabetes mellitus

Diabetes mellitus is a group of metabolic disorders with high mortality and morbidity associated with complications such as cardiovascular disease, kidney disease, and stroke. The prevalence of diabetes is 9.4% in US adults, and prevalence increases markedly with age, with 1 in 4 adults aged ≥65 years affected by diabetes. The estimated number of adults with type 2 diabetes globally almost tripled between 2002 and 2017, reflecting increases seen in the USA and elsewhere. This increase raises concerns about the increased morbidity and mortality associated with the complications of diabetes, including periodontal disease and tooth loss. There is a reciprocal adverse relationship between diabetes and periodontal disease, with diabetes as a major risk factor for periodontal disease, and in those patients with diabetes who also have periodontal disease then there are adverse effects on glycemic control and complications such as cardiovascular disease and end stage renal disease. In this review, those studies detailing the adverse effects of periodontal disease and diabetes will be discussed. Also, evidence is accumulating that periodontitis may play a role in increasing the incidence of new cases of type 2 diabetes, and possibly gestational diabetes. Of course, these studies need to be expanded to better understand the effects of periodontitis on diabetes glycemic control, complications, prediabetes, and the incidence of new cases. However, given the tremendous burden of diabetes on society, the dental profession should be proactive in preventing and treating periodontal disease, not only to preserve the dentition, but also to minimize the adverse effects of periodontitis on diabetes and its complications.

Annual alveolar bone loss in subjects with cardiovascular disease adjusting for associated systemic diseases and risk factors: a retrospective study

Background

To detect annual alveolar bone loss in subjects with cardiovascular disease (CVD) adjusting for associated systemic diseases and risk factors.

Methods

A total number of 132 subjects that reported having CVD from 2008 to 2015 (N = 132). For longitudinal data analysis, 58 subjects eligible for inclusion with at least two exposures of complete mouth set or repeated BW radiographs with at least one-year interval compared with a control group. Alveolar bone level on mesial and distal sites of posterior teeth was measured on bitewing (BW) radiographs available in the electronic health records of each subject.

Results

Subjects who reported having cardiovascular diseases experienced higher annual mean alveolar bone loss (0.062 mm per year) compared to Subjects with no cardiovascular diseases (0.022 mm per year).

Conclusion

Subjects who have reported CVD had higher rate of annual bone loss compared to subjects who did not have any CVD. This observation indicates that targeting high-risk individuals for risk assessment is fundamental to provide the best healthcare possible to those who are the most in need. Periodic examination and assessment of periodontal health is an essential key factor for better oral health, however, it has to be more emphasized and prioritized for individuals that are more prone to the disease.

Annual alveolar bone loss in older adults taking oral bisphosphonate: a retrospective cohort study

Background

Although several studies assessed the effect of bisphosphonate (BIS) administration on alveolar bone loss, this relationship has not been fully investigated using longitudinal analysis. The aim of the this article is to predict annual alveolar bone loss in a subpopulation of older adults patients who were taking oral bisphosphonate (BIS), adjusting for systemic diseases and associated risk factors.

Methods

This is a retrospective cohort study. We identified all subjects who reported receiving oral bisphosphonate from 2008 to 2015 (N = 30) using the electronic health records of each patient to identify suitable radiographs for analysis. For the longitudinal data analysis, 26 subjects were eligible for inclusion, having at least two exposures of the complete mouth set or repeated bitewing radiographs at least a one-year interval; they were then matched on age and sex to another 26 patients who did not report receiving bisphosphonate at any point of their life.

Results

Mild periodontitis was higher in the BIS group compared to the no BIS group; however, moderate periodontitis was higher in the no BIS group. For those who did not take oral BIS, change over time was not significant after the two-year period. However, the BIS group had experienced 0.088 mm more bone loss compared to the no BIS group (95% CI: 0.001, 0.176. P-value = 0.048), adjusting for all other variables included in the model.

Conclusion

The group that reported receiving oral bisphosphonates showed no improvement in maintaining alveolar bone level, and the use of oral BIS may not be effective in reducing annual alveolar bone loss; however, emerging evidence is promising for the use of bisphosphonate as an adjunctive local delivery medication for the management of periodontal diseases.

Prevalence of periodontitis and alveolar bone loss in a patient population at Harvard School of Dental Medicine

Background

Although several studies assessed the prevalence of alveolar bone loss, the association with several risk factors has not been fully investigated. The aim of this article is to measure the prevalence of periodontitis by calculating the mean alveolar bone loss/level of posterior teeth using bitewing radiographs among the patients enrolled in the clinics at Harvard School of Dental Medicine and address risk factors associated with the disease.

Methods

One thousand one hundred thirty-one patients were selected for radiographic analysis to calculate the mean alveolar bone loss/level by measuring the distance between the cementoenamel junction and the alveolar bone crest on the mesial and distal surfaces of posterior teeth. Linear regression with Multi-level mixed-effect model was used for statistical analysis adjusting for age, sex, race, median household income, and other variables.

Results

Mean alveolar bone level of the whole sample was 1.30 mm (±0.006). Overall periodontitis prevalence for the sample was 55.5% (±1.4%). Moderate periodontitis prevalence was 20.7% (±1.2%), while 2.8% (±0.5%) of the whole sample had severe periodontitis. Adjusted mean alveolar bone loss was higher in older age groups, males, Asian race group, ever smokers, and patients with low median household income.

Conclusion

The effect of high household income on the amount of bone loss can be powerful to the degree that high household income can influence outcomes even for individuals who had higher risks of developing the disease. Public health professionals and clinicians need to collaborate with policy makers to achieve and sustain high quality of healthcare for everyone.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of epidemiologic observational evidence on the effect of periodontitis on diabetes An update of the EFP-AAP review

AIM

To update the available evidence on the impact of periodontitis on diabetes control, incidence and complications.

METHODS

Observational studies on the effect of periodontitis on diabetes, published after 2012, were identified through electronic databases and hand-searched journals. Findings were summarized by evidence tables, using PRISMA statement. Quality of the included studies was evaluated through the Newcastle Ottawa scale.

RESULTS

Healthy individuals with periodontitis exhibit a poor glycaemic control and a higher risk of developing diabetes. Individuals affected by diabetes show a deterioration of glycaemic control if also affected by periodontitis and significantly higher prevalence of diabetes-related complications. Limited evidence is available on gestational diabetes and type 1 diabetes.

CONCLUSIONS

Periodontitis has a significant impact on diabetes control, incidence and complications. Nevertheless, the heterogeneity and quality of the included publications suggest that caution should be exercised when interpreting the data and that there remains an important need for additional evidence.