Obstetric outcomes after treatment of periodontal disease during pregnancy: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Section of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Panhellenic Association for Continual Medical Research (PACMeR), Athens, Greece.
BMJ British medical journal (Impact Factor: 16.3). 12/2010; 341:c7017. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.c7017
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To examine whether treatment of periodontal disease with scaling and root planing during pregnancy is associated with a reduction in the preterm birth rate.
Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.
Cochrane Central Trials Registry, ISI Web of Science, Medline, and reference lists of relevant studies to July 2010; hand searches in key journals.
Randomised controlled trials including pregnant women with documented periodontal disease randomised to either treatment with scaling and root planing or no treatment.
Data were extracted by two independent investigators, and a consensus was reached with the involvement a third. Methodological quality of the studies was assessed with the Cochrane's risk of bias tool, and trials were considered either high or low quality. The primary outcome was preterm birth (<37 weeks). Secondary outcomes were low birthweight infants (<2500 g), spontaneous abortions/stillbirths, and overall adverse pregnancy outcome (preterm birth <37 weeks and spontaneous abortions/stillbirths).
11 trials (with 6558 women) were included. Five trials were considered to be of high methodological quality (low risk of bias), whereas the rest were low quality (high or unclear risk of bias). Results among low and high quality trials were consistently diverse; low quality trials supported a beneficial effect of treatment, and high quality trials provided clear evidence that no such effect exists. Among high quality studies, treatment had no significant effect on the overall rate of preterm birth (odds ratio 1.15, 95% confidence interval 0.95 to 1.40; P=0.15). Furthermore, treatment did not reduce the rate of low birthweight infants (odds ratio 1.07, 0.85 to 1.36; P=0.55), spontaneous abortions/stillbirths (0.79, 0.51 to 1.22; P=0.28), or overall adverse pregnancy outcome (preterm births <37 weeks and spontaneous abortions/stillbirths) (1.09, 0.91 to 1.30; P=0.34).
Treatment of periodontal disease with scaling and root planing cannot be considered to be an efficient way of reducing the incidence of preterm birth. Women may be advised to have periodical dental examinations during pregnancy to test their dental status and may have treatment for periodontal disease. However, they should be told that such treatment during pregnancy is unlikely to reduce the risk of preterm birth or low birthweight infants.

Download full-text


Available from: Apostolos Zavos, Jun 19, 2015
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate whether maternal periodontal disease treatment (MPDT) can reduce the incidence of preterm birth (PB) and/or low birth weight (LBW). The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched for entries up to October 2010 without restrictions regarding the language of publication. Only randomized-controlled clinical trials (RCTs) that evaluated the effect of MPDT on birth term and birth weight were included. The search was conducted by two independent reviewers and random-effects meta-analyses were conducted methodically. Thirteen RCTs provided data, but only five trials were considered to be at a low risk of bias. The results of eight studies (61.5%) showed that MPDT may reduce the incidence of PB and/or LBW. However, the results of all meta-analyses showed contrasting results for PB [RR: 0.88 (95% CI: 0.72, 1.09)], LBW [RR: 0.78 (95% CI: 0.53, 1.17)] and PB/LBW [RR: 0.52 (95% CI: 0.08, 3.31)]. The results of this review show that MPDT did not decrease the risk of PB and/or LBW; however, the influence of specific aspects that were not investigated (disease diagnosis, extension and severity and the success of MPDT) should be evaluated by future RCTs.
    Journal Of Clinical Periodontology 07/2011; 38(10):902-14. DOI:10.1111/j.1600-051X.2011.01761.x · 3.61 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: bersetzt aus: Chambrone L, Pannuti CM, Guglielmetti MR, Chambrone LA. Evidence grade associating periodontitis with preterm birth and/or low birth weight. II. A systematic review of randomized trials evaluating the effects of periodontal treatment. Zusammenfassung Ziel: Das Ziel dieses systematischen Reviews war, herauszufinden, ob eine par-odontale Behandlung während der Schwangerschaft (PATHM) das Risiko einer Frühgeburt (FG) und/oder eines niedrigen Geburtsgewichts (NGGW) reduzieren kann. Material und Methoden: Das Cochrane Zentral-Register für kontrollierte Studien sowie MEDLINE und EMBASE wurden auf eingereichte Artikel zu Untersuchun-gen in jeglicher Sprache durchsucht, die bis Oktober 2010 eingegangen waren. Ein-geschlossen wurden nur randomisierte, kontrollierte klinische Studien (RKSs), die den Effekt von PATHM auf den Geburstermin und das Geburtsgewicht untersucht haben. Die Literaturrecherche wurde von zwei unabhängigen Autoren durchgeführt. Random-Effekt-Metaanalysen wurden methodisch durchgeführt. Ergebnisse: Die Daten von dreizehn RKSs wurden untersucht, jedoch zeigten nur fünf Studien ein geringes Risiko für systematische Fehler. Die Ergebnisse von acht Untersuchungen (61,5 %) konnten zeigen, dass das Risiko für FG und/oder NGGW durch PATHM reduziert werden kann. Die Ergebnisse der Meta-Analysen zeigten jedoch gegensätzliche Ergebnisse für die Parameter FG [RR: 0,88 (95 % KI: 0,72; 1,09)], NGGW [RR: 0,78 (95 % KI: 0,53; 1,17)] und FG/NGGW [RR: 0,52 (95 % KI: 0,08; 3,31)]. Schlussfolgerungen: Die Ergebnisse dieses Reviews konnten zeigen, dass PATHM das Risiko für FG und/oder NGGW nicht reduzieren konnte; künftige Untersuchungen sollten allerdings den Einfluss spezifischer Parameter (Diagno-se, Ausmaß und Schwere sowie der Therapieerfolg) hinsichtlich der Ergebnisse berücksichtigen.
    Journal Of Clinical Periodontology 01/2011; 38:72-87. · 3.61 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The association between periodontitis and some of the problems with pregnancy such as premature delivery, low weight at birth, and preeclampsia (PE) has been suggested. Nevertheless, epidemiological data have shown contradictory data, mainly due to differences in clinical parameters of periodontitis assessment. Furthermore, differences in microbial composition and immune response between aggressive and chronic periodontitis are not addressed by these epidemiological studies. We aimed to review the current data on the association between some of these problems with pregnancy and periodontitis, and the mechanisms underlying this association. Shifts in the microbial composition of the subgingival biofilm may occur during pregnancy, leading to a potentially more hazardous microbial community. Pregnancy is characterized by physiological immune tolerance. However, the infection leads to a shift in maternal immune response to a pathogenic pro-inflammatory response, with production of inflammatory cytokines and toxic products. In women with periodontitis, the infected periodontal tissues may act as reservoirs of bacteria and their products that can disseminate to the fetus-placenta unit. In severe periodontitis patients, the infection agents and their products are able to activate inflammatory signaling pathways locally and in extra-oral sites, including the placenta-fetal unit, which may not only induce preterm labor but also lead to PE and restrict intrauterine growth. Despite these evidences, the effectiveness of periodontal treatment in preventing gestational complications was still not established since it may be influenced by several factors such as severity of disease, composition of microbial community, treatment strategy, and period of treatment throughout pregnancy. This lack of scientific evidence does not exclude the need to control infection and inflammation in periodontitis patients during pregnancy, and treatment protocols should be validated.
    Frontiers in Public Health 01/2014; 2:290. DOI:10.3389/fpubh.2014.00290