Dataset Information

Effect of periodontal treatment on glycemic control of diabetic patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE: There is growing evidence that periodontitis may affect general health. This study was assigned to explore the robustness of observations that periodontal therapy leads to the improvement of glycemic control in diabetic patients. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A literature search (until March 2009) was carried out using two databases (MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library) with language restriction to English. Selection of publications was based on 1) original investigations, 2) controlled periodontal intervention studies where the diabetic control group received no periodontal treatment, and 3) study duration of > or =3 months. RESULTS: Screening of the initial 639 identified studies and reference checking resulted in five suitable articles. A total of 371 patients were included in this analysis with periodontitis as predictor and the actual absolute change in A1C (DeltaA1C) as the outcome. The duration of follow-up was 3-9 months. All studies described a research population of type 2 diabetic patients in whom glycemic control improved after periodontal therapy compared with the control group (range DeltaA1C: Delta-1.17 up to Delta-0.05%). The studies in a meta-analysis demonstrated a weighted mean difference of DeltaA1C before and after therapy of -0.40% (95% CI -0.77 to -0.04%, P = 0.03) favoring periodontal intervention in type 2 diabetic patients. Nevertheless, this improvement in %A1C must be interpreted with care due to limited robustness as evidenced by heterogeneity among studies (59.5%, P = 0.04). CONCLUSIONS: The present meta-analysis suggests that periodontal treatment leads to an improvement of glycemic control in type 2 diabetic patients for at least 3 months.

SUBMITTER: Teeuw WJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2809296 | biostudies-other | 2010 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Effect of periodontal treatment on glycemic control of diabetic patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Teeuw Wijnand J WJ Gerdes Victor E A VE Loos Bruno G BG

Diabetes care 20100201 2

<h4>Objective</h4>There is growing evidence that periodontitis may affect general health. This study was assigned to explore the robustness of observations that periodontal therapy leads to the improvement of glycemic control in diabetic patients.<h4>Research design and methods</h4>A literature search (until March 2009) was carried out using two databases (MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library) with language restriction to English. Selection of publications was based on 1) original investigations, 2) ...[more]

PMID: 20103557

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundGlycemic control is vital in the care of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) and is significantly associated with the incidence of clinical complications. This Bayesian network analysis was conducted with an aim of evaluating the efficacy of scaling and root planning (SRP) and SRP?+?adjuvant treatments in improving glycemic control in chronic periodontitis (CP) and T2DM patients, and to guide clinical practice.MethodsWe searched the Pubmed, Embase, Cochrane Library and Web of Science databases up to 4 May 2018 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). This was at least three months of the duration of study that involved patients with periodontitis and T2DM without other systemic diseases given SRP. Patients in the control group did not receive treatment or SRP combination with adjuvant therapy. Outcomes were given as HbA1c% and levels fasting plasma glucose (FPG). Random-effects meta-analysis and Bayesian network meta-analysis were conducted to pool RCT data. Cochrane's risk of bias tool was used to assess the risk of bias.ResultsFourteen RCTs were included. Most were unclear or with high risk of bias. Compared to patients who did not receive treatment, patients who received periodontal treatments showed improved HbA1c% level, including SRP (the mean difference (MD) -0.399 95% CrI 0.088 to 0.79), SRP?+?antibiotic (MD 0.62, 95% CrI 0.18 to 1.11), SRP?+?photodynamic therapy (aPDT)?+?doxycycline (Doxy) (MD 1.082 95% CrI 0.13 to 2.077) and SRP?+?laser (MD 0.66 95% CrI 0.1037, 1.33). Among the different treatments, SRP?+?aPDT + Doxy ranked best. Regarding fasting plasma glucose (FPG), SRP did not show advantage over no treatment (MD 4.91 95% CI -?1.95 to 11.78) and SRP with adjuvant treatments were not better than SRP alone (MD -0.28 95% CI -8.66, 8.11).ConclusionThe results of this meta-analysis seem to support that periodontal treatment with aPDT + Doxy possesses the best efficacy in lowering HbA1c% of non-smoking CP without severe T2DM complications. However, longer-term well-executed, multi-center trails are required to corroborate the results.

Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate the association between glycemic control (hemoglobin A1C, fasting glucose, and random glucose) and the outcomes of wound healing and lower extremity amputation (LEA) among patients with diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs).Research design and methodsMedline, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, and Scopus were searched for observational studies published up to March 2019. Five independent reviewers assessed in duplicate the eligibility of each study based on predefined eligibility criteria and two independent reviewers assessed risk of bias. Ameta-analysis was performed to calculate a pooled odds ratio (OR) or hazard ratio (HR) using random effects for glycemic measures in relation to the outcomes of wound healing and LEA. Subgroup analyses were conducted to explore potential source of heterogeneity between studies. The study protocol is registered with PROSPERO (CRD42018096842).ResultsOf 4572 study records screened, 60 observational studies met the study eligibility criteria of which 47 studies had appropriate data for inclusion in one or more meta-analyses(n = 12,604 DFUs). For cohort studies comparing A1C >7.0 to 7.5% vs. lower A1C levels, the pooled OR for LEA was 2.04 (95% CI, 0.91, 4.57) and for studies comparing A1C ≥ 8% vs. <8%, the pooled OR for LEA was 4.80 (95% CI 2.83, 8.13). For cohort studies comparing fasting glucose ≥126 vs. <126 mg/dl, the pooled OR for LEA was 1.46 (95% CI, 1.02, 2.09). There was no association with A1C category and wound healing (OR or HR). There was high risk of bias with respect to comparability of cohorts as many studies did not adjust for potential confounders in the association between glycemic control and DFU outcomes.ConclusionsOur findings suggest that A1C levels ≥8% and fasting glucose levels ≥126 mg/dl are associated with increased likelihood of LEA in patients with DFUs. A purposively designed prospective study is needed to better understand the mechanisms underlying the association between hyperglycemia and LEA.

Project description:INTRODUCTION: Hyper- and hypoglycemia are strongly associated with adverse outcomes in critical care. Neurologically injured patients are a unique subgroup, where optimal glycemic targets may differ, such that the findings of clinical trials involving heterogeneous critically ill patients may not apply. METHODS: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing intensive insulin therapy with conventional glycemic control among patients with traumatic brain injury, ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke, anoxic encephalopathy, central nervous system infections or spinal cord injury. RESULTS: Sixteen RCTs, involving 1248 neurocritical care patients, were included. Glycemic targets with intensive insulin ranged from 70-140 mg/dl (3.9-7.8 mmol/L), while conventional protocols aimed to keep glucose levels below 144-300 mg/dl (8.0-16.7 mmol/L). Tight glycemic control had no impact on mortality (RR 0.99; 95% CI 0.83-1.17; p = 0.88), but did result in fewer unfavorable neurological outcomes (RR 0.91; 95% CI 0.84-1.00; p = 0.04). However, improved outcomes were only observed when glucose levels in the conventional glycemic control group were permitted to be relatively high [threshold for insulin administration > 200 mg/dl (> 11.1 mmol/L)], but not with more intermediate glycemic targets [threshold for insulin administration 140-180 mg/dl (7.8-10.0 mmol/L)]. Hypoglycemia was far more common with intensive therapy (RR 3.10; 95% CI 1.54-6.23; p = 0.002), but there was a large degree of heterogeneity in the results of individual trials (Q = 47.9; p<0.0001; I2 = 75%). Mortality was non-significantly higher with intensive insulin in studies where the proportion of patients developing hypoglycemia was large (> 33%) (RR 1.17; 95% CI 0.79-1.75; p = 0.44). CONCLUSIONS: Intensive insulin therapy significantly increases the risk of hypoglycemia and does not influence mortality among neurocritical care patients. Very loose glucose control is associated with worse neurological recovery and should be avoided. These results suggest that intermediate glycemic goals may be most appropriate.

Dataset Information

Effect of periodontal treatment on glycemic control of diabetic patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Publications

Effect of periodontal treatment on glycemic control of diabetic patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets