Dataset Information

Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials evaluating the efficacy of non-surgical periodontal treatment in patients with concurrent systemic conditions.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To conduct a systematic review of the published scientific evidence to evaluate the efficacy of nonsurgical periodontal therapy (NSPT) in treating periodontitis in patients with concurrent systemic conditions (diabetes, CVD, erectile dysfunction, chronic kidney disease, rheumatoid arthritis, polycystic ovarian syndrome, obesity, pregnancy). We hypothesised that NSPT results in better periodontal outcomes when compared to untreated controls after follow-up.

Materials and methods

A systematic search (PUBMED/EMBASE) was conducted from 1995 to 2023 to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with a minimum follow-up of 3 months. The primary outcome was the difference in mean probing depth (PD), and the secondary outcomes were mean clinical attachment loss (CAL), percentage of sites with PD ≤ 3 mm (%PD ≤ 3 mm) and percentage of sites with bleeding on probing (%BOP) between the treated and untreated control group in patients with comorbidities.

Results

The electronic search resulted in 2,403 hits. After removing duplicates, 1,565 titles and abstracts were screened according to the eligibility criteria, resulting in 126 articles for full-text screening. Following this, 44 studies were analysed. Restricting to studies with low bias or some concerns, NSPT group demonstrated a 0.55 mm lower mean PD (95%CI: -0.69; -0.41) after 3 months compared to the control group.

Conclusion

Compared to the untreated controls, NSPT notably reduced mean PD, mean CAL, and %BOP while increasing %PD ≤ 3 mm in patients with concurrent systemic conditions. These findings suggest that NSPT is also an effective procedure in managing periodontitis in patients with concurrent systemic conditions.

Trial registration

This systematic review was registered under the protocol registration number CRD42021241517/PROSPERO.

SUBMITTER: Joseph P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10751251 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials evaluating the efficacy of non-surgical periodontal treatment in patients with concurrent systemic conditions.

Joseph Prabhakar P Prabhakar Priya P Holtfreter Birte B Pink Christiane C Suvan Jeanie J Kocher Thomas T Pitchika Vinay V

Clinical oral investigations 20231226 1

<h4>Objective</h4>To conduct a systematic review of the published scientific evidence to evaluate the efficacy of nonsurgical periodontal therapy (NSPT) in treating periodontitis in patients with concurrent systemic conditions (diabetes, CVD, erectile dysfunction, chronic kidney disease, rheumatoid arthritis, polycystic ovarian syndrome, obesity, pregnancy). We hypothesised that NSPT results in better periodontal outcomes when compared to untreated controls after follow-up.<h4>Materials and meth ...[more]

PMID: 38147183

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundAlthough there are thousands of mental health apps, 2 apps, Headspace and Calm, claim a large percentage of the marketplace. These two mindfulness and meditation apps have reached tens of millions of active users. To guide consumers, clinicians, and researchers, we performed a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of Headspace and Calm.ObjectiveOur study aimed to evaluate intervention efficacy, risk of bias, and conflicts of interest (COIs) in the evidence base for Headspace and Calm, the two most popular mental health apps at the time of our search.MethodsTo identify studies, we searched academic databases (Google Scholar, MEDLINE, and PsycINFO) and the websites of Headspace and Calm in May 2021 for RCTs of Headspace and Calm testing efficacy via original data collection, published in English in peer-reviewed journals. For each study, we coded (1) study characteristics (eg, participants, sample size, and outcome measures), (2) intervention characteristics (eg, free vs paid version of the app and intended frequency of app usage), (3) all study outcomes, (4) Cochrane risk of bias variables, and (5) COI variables (eg, presence or absence of a preregistration and the presence or absence of a COI statement involving the company).ResultsWe identified 14 RCTs of Headspace and 1 RCT of Calm. Overall, 93% (13/14) of RCTs of Headspace and 100% (1/1) of RCTs of Calm recruited participants from a nonclinical population. Studies commonly measured mindfulness, well-being, stress, depressive symptoms, and anxiety symptoms. Headspace use improved depression in 75% of studies that evaluated it as an outcome. Findings were mixed for mindfulness, well-being, stress, and anxiety, but at least 40% of studies showed improvement for each of these outcomes. Studies were generally underpowered to detect "small" or "medium" effect sizes. Furthermore, 50% (7/14) of RCTs of Headspace and 0% (0/1) of RCTs of Calm reported a COI that involved Headspace or Calm (the companies). The most common COI was the app company providing premium app access for free for participants, and notably, 14% (2/14) of RCTs of Headspace reported Headspace employee involvement in study design, execution, and data analysis. Only 36% (5/14) of RCTs of Headspace were preregistered, and the 1 RCT of Calm was not preregistered.ConclusionsThe empirical research on Headspace appears promising, whereas there is an absence of randomized trials on Calm. Limitations of this study include an inability to compare Headspace and Calm owing to the dearth of RCTs studying Calm and the reliance on author reports to evaluate COIs. When determining whether or not mental health apps are of high quality, identification of high-quality apps and evaluation of their effectiveness and investigators' COIs should be ensured.

Project description:BackgroundDentine hypersensitivity (DH) could occur or intensify after non-surgical periodontal therapy because of the exposure of dentine tubules, but currently no gold standard exists to treat DH. It has been demonstrated that nano-sized particles presented potential for dentine tubules blocking and remineralization. This randomized controlled trial aimed to investigate the efficacy of dentifrice containing nano-carbonate apatite (n-CAP) in reducing dentine hypersensitivity (DH) after non-surgical periodontal therapy.Methods48 periodontitis patients with DH were included in this clinical trial. After non-surgical periodontal therapy, patients included were randomized to test and control group and the respective dentifrices were applied at chairside, after which they were instructed to brush teeth with the allocated dentifrices twice a day at home. Periodontal parameters were recorded at baseline and the last follow-up. DH was measured by air-blast test and recorded by visual analogue scale (VAS) and Schiff sensitivity scale at baseline, after polishing (0 week) and 2/4/6 weeks.Results45 participants completed the follow-up. Periodontal parameters were improved and comparable between groups. Significant reduction in DH was observed in both groups at all time-points compared to baseline in terms of VAS and Schiff score. The test group achieved significantly greater relief from hypersensitivity compared with the control group after 4-week at-home use (for change of VAS, test group: 2.27 ± 2.47 versus control group: 1.68 ± 2.24, p = 0.036; for change of Schiff, test group: 0.94 ± 0.92 versus control group: 0.61 ± 0.83, p < 0.001). The 6-week results showed borderline significance between groups in terms of change of Schiff (p = 0.027) and no significance in terms of change of VAS (p = 0.256).ConclusionsHome-use of n-CAP based dentifrice had some benefit on alleviation of DH following non-surgical periodontal therapy after 4 weeks compared to the control product.Trial registrationChinese Clinical Trials Registry (No. ChiCTR-IPR-17011678, http://www.chictr.org.cn/, registered 16 June, 2017).

Project description:BackgroundTelemedicine involves medical, diagnostic, and treatment-related services using telecommunication technology. Not only does telemedicine contribute to improved patient quality of life and satisfaction by reducing travel time and allowing patients to be seen in their usual environment, but it also has the potential to improve disease management by making it easier for patients to see a doctor. Recently, owing to IT developments, research on telemedicine has been increasing; however, its usefulness and limitations in randomized controlled trials remain unclear because of the multifaceted effects of telemedicine. Furthermore, the specific metrics that can be used as cross-disciplinary indicators when comparing telemedicine and face-to-face care also remain undefined.ObjectiveThis review aimed to provide an overview of the general and cross-disciplinarity metrics used to compare telemedicine with in-person care in randomized controlled trials. In addition, we identified previously unevaluated indicators and suggested those that should be prioritized in future clinical trials.MethodsMEDLINE and Embase databases were searched for publications that met the inclusion criteria according to PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis Extension for Scoping Reviews). Original, English-language articles on randomized controlled trials comparing some forms of telemedicine with face-to-face care from January 2019 to March 2024 were included, and the basic information and general metrics used in these studies were summarized.ResultsOf the 2275 articles initially identified, 79 were included in the final analysis. The commonly used metrics that can be used across medical specialties were divided into the following 3 categories: (1) patient-centeredness (67/79, 85%), including patient satisfaction, workload, and quality of life; (2) patient outcomes (57/79, 72%), including general clinical parameters such as death, admission, and adverse events; and (3) cost-effectiveness (40/79, 51%), including cost assessment and quality-adjusted life year. Notably, only 25 (32%) of 79 studies evaluated all the 3 categories. Other metrics, such as staff convenience, system usability, and environmental impact, were extracted as indicators in different directions from the three categories above, although few previous reports have evaluated them (staff convenience: 8/79, 10%; system usability: 3/79, 4%; and environmental impact: 2/79, 3%).ConclusionsA significant variation was observed in the metrics used across previous studies. Notably, general indicators should be used to enhance the understandability of the results for people in other areas, even if disease-specific indicators are used. In addition, indicators should be established to include all three commonly used categories of measures to ensure a comprehensive evaluation: patient-centeredness, patient outcomes, and cost-effectiveness. Staff convenience, system usability, and environmental impact are important indicators that should be used in future trials. Moreover, standardization of the evaluation metrics is desired for future clinical trials and studies.Trial registrationOpen Science Forum Registries YH5S7; https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/YH5S7.

Dataset Information

Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials evaluating the efficacy of non-surgical periodontal treatment in patients with concurrent systemic conditions.

Objective

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusion

Trial registration

Publications

Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials evaluating the efficacy of non-surgical periodontal treatment in patients with concurrent systemic conditions.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets