Efficacy of different protocols of non-surgical periodontal therapy in patients with type 2 diabetes: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract

The aim of the present systematic review of the literature and meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy of different protocols of NSPT without any adjunctive therapy in subjects with type 2 diabetes, by considering clinical and patient-centered outcomes. For the purposes of the study randomized controlled clinical trials with more than 3-month follow-up were searched in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central. Then the articles were screened for inclusion and considered based on the protocols adopted, the outcome measure, follow-up, and the level of glycemic control. A total of 23 articles about 22 studies were included. NSPT was more effective than just oral hygiene measures/no treatment in reducing periodontal probing depth (PPD) and clinical attachment loss (CAL) at 3 months (0.47 mm [0.29-0.65 mm] and 0.50 mm [0.24-0.76 mm], respectively) and 6 months (0.56 mm [0.28-0.84 mm] and 0.45 mm [0.13-0.77 mm], respectively for PPD and CAL) follow-up (very low and low level of evidence). The meta-analysis found no evidence of a difference between full-mouth disinfection versus quadrant protocol clinical outcomes (very low level of evidence). One study found no evidence of a difference in periodontal clinical response between good versus poor glycemic control. Based on the results of the present research NSPT protocols could be considered more efficacious than others in terms of clinical outcomes in subjects with type 2 diabetes. Moreover, NSPT resulted in efficacious improvement of periodontal parameters and HbA1c levels compared to no treatment or oral hygiene instructions alone.

Keywords: glycated hemoglobin; periodontal diseases; periodontitis; systematic review; type 2 diabetes mellitus.

FIGURE 1

PRISMA diagram of the article selection process. *Consider, if feasible to do so, reporting the number of records identified from each database or register searched (rather than the total number across all databases/registers). **If automation tools were used, indicate how many records were excluded by a human and how many were excluded by automation tools. From: Page et al., 2021.