Effect of intra-pregnancy nonsurgical periodontal therapy on inflammatory biomarkers and adverse pregnancy outcomes: a systematic review with meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of this systematic review with meta-analysis was to analyze the effects of intra-pregnancy nonsurgical periodontal therapy on periodontal inflammatory biomarkers and adverse pregnancy outcomes. METHODS: On June 5, 2017, we searched PubMed, Cochrane, SCOPUS, Web of Science, LILACS, ProQuest, Open Grey, and Google Scholar databases. Randomized clinical trials in which pregnant women with chronic periodontitis underwent nonsurgical periodontal therapy, compared with an untreated group, tested for inflammatory biomarkers, and followed till delivery were included. Primary outcomes were preterm birth, low birth weight, and preeclampsia. Meta-analysis was performed with 5.3.5 version of Review Manager software. RESULTS: We found 565 references in the databases, 326 after duplicates removal, 28 met criteria for full text reading, and 4 met eligibility criteria for quantitative and qualitative synthesis. Intra-pregnancy nonsurgical periodontal therapy improved periodontal clinical parameters (periodontal pocket depth, clinical attachment level, and bleeding on probing) and reduced biomarker level from gingival crevicular fluid (GCF), and some from blood serum; however, it did not influence biomarker level from umbilical cord blood. Meta-analysis showed tendency for reduction of the risk of preterm birth before 37 weeks for treated group (risk ratio (RR) = 0.54, 95% CI 0.38-0.77; p = 0.0007; inconsistency indexes (I2) 32%) but did not show any difference for low birth weight occurrence (RR = 0.78, 95%CI 0.50-1.21; p = 0.27; I2 41%). No included study considered preeclampsia as a gestational outcome. CONCLUSIONS: These results demonstrated that the intra-pregnancy nonsurgical periodontal therapy decreased periodontal inflammatory biomarker levels from gingival crevicular fluid and some from serum blood, with no influence on inflammatory biomarker level from cord blood, and it did not consistently reduce adverse gestational adverse outcome occurrence. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42015027750.
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 | 0.016 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.023 | 0.038 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".