Association of vitamin D in individuals with periodontitis: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There are differences in vitamin D levels between periodontitis and healthy individuals, but the effect of vitamin D on periodontitis is controversial. The purpose of this Meta-analysis is twofold: (1) compare vitamin D levels in individuals with or without periodontitis; (2) assess the effects of vitamin D supplementation during scaling and root planing (SRP) on periodontal clinical parameters in individuals with periodontitis. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted in five databases (PubMed, Web of Science, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane library), published from the database inception to 12 September 2022. The Cochrane Collaboration Risk of bias (ROB) assessment tool, the risk of bias in non-randomized studies of intervention (ROBINS-I) tool, the Newcastle-Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale (NOS), and Agency for Healthcare Quality and Research (AHRQ) were used to evaluate randomized controlled trial (RCT), non-RCT, case-control study, and cross-sectional study, respectively. Statistical analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3 and Stata 14.0 software, with weighted mean difference (WMD), standardized mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) as the effect measures, and heterogeneity was tested by subgroup analysis, sensitivity analysis, Meta-regression. RESULTS: A total of 16 articles were included. The results of Meta-analysis showed that periodontitis was associated with lower serum vitamin D levels compared to normal population (SMD = -0.88, 95%CI -1.75 ~ -0.01, P = 0.048), while there was no significant difference in serum or saliva 25(OH)D levels between periodontitis and normal population. Additionally, the Meta-analysis showed that SRP + vitamin D and SRP alone had a statistically significant effect on serum vitamin D levels in individuals with periodontitis (SMD = 23.67, 95%CI 8.05 ~ 32.29, P = 0.003; SMD = 1.57, 95%CI 1.08 ~ 2.06, P < 0.01). And SRP + vitamin D could significantly reduce clinical attachment level compared to SRP alone (WMD = -0.13, 95%CI -0.19 ~ -0.06, P < 0.01), but had no meaningful effect on probing depth, gingival index, bleeding index, respectively. CONCLUSION: The evidence from this Meta-analysis suggests that the serum vitamin D concentration of individuals with periodontitis is lower than that of normal people, and SRP along with vitamin D supplementation has been shown to play a significant role in improving periodontal clinical parameters. Therefore, vitamin D supplementation as an adjuvant to nonsurgical periodontal therapy has a positive impact on the prevention and treatment of periodontal disease in clinical practice.
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 | 0.012 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.036 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 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".