The impact of periodontal therapy on oral health‐related quality of life in adults: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Periodontal disease negatively affects oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL). While there is sufficient evidence for the clinical efficacy of periodontal therapy, data on patient-based outcomes are limited. OBJECTIVES: To systematically review the available evidence on the impact of periodontal therapy on OHRQoL in adults. MATERIAL & METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL and LILACS were searched without language restrictions. Longitudinal observational and intervention studies assessing changes in OHRQoL using validated measures, in adults with periodontal disease undergoing non-surgical (NST) or surgical therapy (ST), were eligible for inclusion. Study quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale and CONSORT-checklist. No meta-analysis was performed. RESULTS: Eleven studies (seven prospective case-series', one controlled before-after study and three randomized controlled trials) of "medium" methodological quality were included in the review. All studies reported impaired OHRQoL before therapy. Nine studies reported a statistically significant improvement in OHRQoL after NST (follow-up = 1 week to 12 months, p < 0.05). The effect size for this improvement ranged from small (0.27) to large (0.8). No significant differences were reported between different forms of NST. Surgical therapy had a relatively lower impact on OHRQoL. A correlation between poor clinical response to therapy and poor OHRQoL outcomes was observed. CONCLUSION: Routine non-surgical therapy can moderately improve the OHRQoL in adults with periodontal disease.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".