The effect of periodontal treatment on patients with rheumatoid arthritis: The ESPERA randomised controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of periodontal treatment on clinical and biochemical parameters of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and quality of life (QoL) in patients with moderately active RA who were diagnosed with periodontitis. METHODS: In this open-label randomised controlled trial, RA subjects (n = 22) were allocated to "immediate" or "delayed" periodontal treatment (full-mouth non-surgical scaling and root planing, systemic antibiotics, and oral hygiene instructions). The main outcome was the 3-month change on the Disease Activity Score 28 based on the Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate (DAS28-ESR). The Health Assessment Questionnaire and the General Oral Health Assessment Index were used to assess general and oral health QoL, respectively. RESULTS: Periodontal health significantly improved after periodontal treatment (P = 0.03). Periodontal treatment appeared to be safe but led to no significant effects on the DAS28-ESR (adjusted mean difference with 95% confidence interval (aMD) of -0.03 [-0.98; 0.92]). There was no evidence of improvement in the general QoL after periodontal treatment and no significant effect was found for the oral health QoL, despite a positive trend in the "psychological impacts" domain (aMD of 0.13 [-0.07; 0.33], P = 0.20). CONCLUSIONS: Although no clinical effect of periodontal treatment on RA was identified, this trial provides important data to support periodontal care in RA patients. Periodontal treatment is safe and reduces oral inflammation with a possible effect on oral health QoL. Since both periodontitis and RA are complex and multifactorial chronic diseases, it is likely that patient-centred approaches involving both oral health professionals and rheumatologists will contribute to optimal patient care. ISRCTN79186420.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.001 |
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".