Search

Objective: The purpose of this paper is to systematically and critically appraise the available scientific evidence concerning the prevalence of edentulism among diabetic patients compared to non‐diabetic people. Methods: MEDLINE‐PubMed and Cochrane‐CENTRAL databases were comprehensively searched up to April 2023 to identify appropriate studies. The inclusion criteria were observational studies conducted in human subjects ≥18 years of age with the primary aim of investigating the prevalence of edentulism among diabetic patients. Based on the extracted data, a meta‐analysis was performed. Recommendations based on the body of evidence were formulated using the GRADE approach. Results: Independent screening of 2085 unique titles and abstracts revealed seven publications that met the eligibility criteria. Study size ranged from 293 to 15,943 participants. Data from all seven studies were suitable for meta‐analysis. Overall, 8.3% of the studied population was edentulous. The weighted mean prevalence of edentulism among diabetic and non‐diabetics was 14.0% and 7.1%, respectively. The overall odds ratio for diabetic patients to be edentulous as compared to non‐diabetics was 2.39 (95% CI [1.73, 3.28], p < 0.00001). Conclusion: There appears to be moderate certainty that the risk of being edentulous for diabetic patients compared to non‐diabetic people is significant, but the odds ratio is estimated to be small. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: This retrospective analysis investigates changes in daily oral hygiene behaviour after the initial phase of non‐surgical periodontal therapy (NSPT). Materials and Methods: This retrospective study includes 189 consecutive periodontitis patients treated for moderate to severe periodontitis. The authors used the oral hygiene behaviour questionnaire (OHB‐9) to assess and evaluate the oral hygiene self‐care practices at both intake and evaluation after an active phase of NSPT which consisted of repeated oral hygiene instruction (OHI), supra‐ and subgingival debridement and polishing. In addition, data on pocket probing depth and bleeding upon pocket probing (BOP) were extracted and PISA and PESA scores were collected. All these parameters are descriptive of the periodontal status at intake and the clinical response to NSPT. Results: The OHB‐9 showed an increased oral hygiene self‐care level after the active phase of NSPT. At the evaluation, 85% of patients used a power toothbrush (PTB), representing an increase of 26% as compared with the intake. In addition, 64% reported brushing 3 min or longer, representing an increase of 33%. The use of woodsticks (WS) and interdental brushes (IDB) at least once a day increased with 15% and 40% respectively. The distribution changes on the answering scale were significant for IDB, WS and brushing duration. However, no significant relationship was found between oral hygiene behaviour at the evaluation and the improvement of the gingival inflammation evaluated by BOP percentage. Conclusion: The finding of the OHB‐9 questionnaire reported was an increase of patients who brushed longer and used the PTB, WS and IDB on a daily basis. The observed improvements in gingival inflammation assessed as bleeding on probing tendency were not significantly associated with oral hygiene behaviour at the evaluation of NSPT. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The aim of this retrospective analysis was to evaluate, in adult patients treated for periodontitis, the periodontal stability during supportive periodontal therapy (SPT). Methods: Data were collected and analyzed retrospectively for periodontitis patients aged ≥36 years who underwent active periodontal therapy (APT) and were following an SPT programme. The stability of the APT success, defined as a probing pocket depth (PPD) of ≤5 mm, was the main outcome parameter. Analyses were performed in which PPD, tooth loss (TL), bleeding on probing (BOP), periodontal epithelium surface area (PESA), and the effects of age, gender, smoking status, and the number of years in SPT were evaluated. The annual TL and BOP of <10% in addition to a PPD of ≤5 mm were considered to be secondary outcome variables. Results: In total, 993 patients were included, in 36% of whom a PPD ≤5 mm was found at the evaluation of APT. If the outcome was defined as a BOP of <10% in addition to a PPD of ≤5 mm, this was present in only 16% of the patients. During SPT, a small overall increase in clinical parameters for the total population and an annual average TL of 0.15 per patient was observed. Patients of male gender and smokers negatively affected the success of SPT. Conclusion: The periodontal clinical status remained 'fairly' stable during SPT in chronic periodontitis patients aged ≥36 years. Smoking negatively affects the outcome of APT and periodontal stability during SPT. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The present study aimed to establish the efficacy of sodium hypochlorite mouthwash (NaOCl‐MW) compared with a control mouthwash on plaque and clinical parameters of periodontal disease. Methods: MEDLINE‐PubMed, Embase and Cochrane‐CENTRAL databases were searched for clinical trials on patients with gingivitis or periodontitis that assessed the effect of NaOCl‐MW in comparison with a negative or positive control on plaque index (PI), gingival index (GI), and bleeding index (BI) scores and probing pocket depth (PPD). Data were extracted from the eligible studies. Results: Seven eligible papers were retrieved, which together represented six clinical trials. The studies showed considerable heterogeneity regarding methodological and clinical aspects that did not permit a meta‐analysis. Two of the three studies in which NaOCl‐MW was compared with a negative control showed that NaOCl‐MW significantly reduced PI, GI and BI, and no effect was found on PPD. In three studies, NaOCl‐MW was assessed using chlorhexidine mouthwash (CHX‐MW) as a positive control; no difference was found for GI and BI. One of the three comparisons showed a statistically significant PI score favouring NaOCl‐MW. One study measured PPD and found it to be significant in favour of NaOCl‐MW. Conclusions: Studies with a negative control group provided very weak quality evidence for a very small beneficial effect of NaOCl‐MW on PI, GI and BI scores. Studies with a positive control group provided very weak quality evidence that NaOCl‐MW had a similar effect as CHX‐MW on PI, GI and BI scores. The outcome for PPD was inconclusive. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: The aim of this systematic review was to comprehensively and critically summarize and synthesize the risk of losing teeth among with diabetes mellitus (DM) compared to those without DM, as established in observational studies. Materials and methods: MEDLINE‐PubMed and Cochrane databases were searched through a period from their inception through October 2020 to identify eligible studies. Papers that primarily evaluate the number of teeth in DM patients compared to non‐DM individuals were included. A descriptive analysis of the selected studies was conducted, and when feasible, a meta‐analysis was performed. The quality of the studies was assessed. Results: A total of 1087 references were generated, and screening of the papers resulted in 10 eligible publications. A descriptive analysis demonstrated that six of these studies indicate a significantly higher risk of tooth loss in DM patients. This was confirmed by the meta‐analysis risk ratio of 1.63 95% CI (1.33; 2.00, p < 0.00001). Subgroup analysis illustrates that this is irrespective of the risk‐of‐bias assessment. The higher risk of tooth loss in DM patients was also higher when only DM type II patients or studies with a cross‐sectional design were considered. Patients with a poor DM control status presented a significantly increased risk of tooth loss. When the data were separated by the world continent where the study was performed, Asia and South America had numerically higher risks and a 95% CI that did not overlap with Europe and North America. Conclusion: There is moderate certainty for a small but significantly higher risk of tooth loss in DM patients as compared to those without DM. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]