Antioxidants as Adjuvants in Periodontitis Treatment: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This systematic review with meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effect of antioxidants as an adjuvant in periodontitis treatment. The following databases were consulted: PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane, Lilacs, OpenGrey, and Google Scholar. Based on the PICO strategy, the inclusion criteria comprised interventional studies including periodontitis patients (participants) treated with conventional therapy and antioxidants (intervention) compared to patients treated only with conventional therapy (control) where the periodontal response (outcome) was evaluated. The risk of bias was evaluated using the Cochrane RoB tool (for randomized studies) and ROBINS-I tool (for nonrandomized studies). Quantitative data were analyzed in five random effects meta-analyses considering the following periodontal parameters: clinical attachment loss (CAL), plaque index (PI), gingival index (GI), bleeding on probing (BOP), and probing depth (PD). After all, the level of certainty was measured with the Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) tool. Among the 1884 studies identified, only 15 interventional studies were according to the eligibility criteria and they were included in our review. From them, 4 articles presented a high risk of bias. The meta-analysis showed a statistically significant difference for CAL (SMD 0.29 (0.04, 0.55), <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M1"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn>0.03</mml:mn></mml:math>, <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M2"><mml:msup><mml:mrow><mml:mi>I</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mn>2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn>13</mml:mn><mml:mi>%</mml:mi></mml:math>), PI (SMD 0.41 (0.18, 0.64), <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M3"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn>0.0005</mml:mn></mml:math>, <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M4"><mml:msup><mml:mrow><mml:mi>I</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mn>2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn>47</mml:mn><mml:mi>%</mml:mi></mml:math>), and BOP (SMD 0.55 (0.27, 0.83), <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M5"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn>0.0001</mml:mn></mml:math>, <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M6"><mml:msup><mml:mrow><mml:mi>I</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mn>2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn>0</mml:mn><mml:mi>%</mml:mi></mml:math>). The GRADE tool showed a moderate to high certainty in the quality of evidence depending on the clinical parameter and antioxidants used. These results suggest that the use of antioxidants is an adjunct approach to nonsurgical periodontal therapy which may be helpful in controlling the periodontal status.
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 | 0.020 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.025 | 0.042 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| 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".