The Clinical, Microbiological, and Immunological Effects of Probiotic Supplementation on Prevention and Treatment of Periodontal Diseases: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
(1) Background: Periodontal diseases are a global health concern. They are multi-stage, progressive inflammatory diseases triggered by the inflammation of the gums in response to periodontopathogens and may lead to the destruction of tooth-supporting structures, tooth loss, and systemic health problems. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the effects of probiotic supplementation on the prevention and treatment of periodontal disease based on the assessment of clinical, microbiological, and immunological outcomes. (2) Methods: This study was registered under PROSPERO (CRD42021249120). Six databases were searched: PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Dentistry and Oral Science Source. The meta-analysis assessed the effects of probiotic supplementation on the prevention and treatment of periodontal diseases and reported them using Hedge’s g standardized mean difference (SMD). (3) Results: Of the 1883 articles initially identified, 64 randomized clinical trials were included in this study. The results of this meta-analysis indicated statistically significant improvements after probiotic supplementation in the majority of the clinical outcomes in periodontal disease patients, including the plaque index (SMD = 0.557, 95% CI: 0.228, 0.885), gingival index, SMD = 0.920, 95% CI: 0.426, 1.414), probing pocket depth (SMD = 0.578, 95% CI: 0.365, 0.790), clinical attachment level (SMD = 0.413, 95% CI: 0.262, 0.563), bleeding on probing (SMD = 0.841, 95% CI: 0.479, 1.20), gingival crevicular fluid volume (SMD = 0.568, 95% CI: 0.235, 0.902), reduction in the subgingival periodontopathogen count of P. gingivalis (SMD = 0.402, 95% CI: 0.120, 0.685), F. nucleatum (SMD = 0.392, 95% CI: 0.127, 0.658), and T. forsythia (SMD = 0.341, 95% CI: 0.050, 0.633), and immunological markers MMP-8 (SMD = 0.819, 95% CI: 0.417, 1.221) and IL-6 (SMD = 0.361, 95% CI: 0.079, 0.644). (4) Conclusions: The results of this study suggest that probiotic supplementation improves clinical parameters, and reduces the periodontopathogen load and pro-inflammatory markers in periodontal disease patients. However, we were unable to assess the preventive role of probiotic supplementation due to the paucity of studies. Further clinical studies are needed to determine the efficacy of probiotic supplementation in the prevention of periodontal diseases.
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 | 0.013 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.021 | 0.032 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".