Evaluating the Protective Role of Vitamin A Supplementation in Periodontal Health: A Comprehensive Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Recent studies suggest a potential role for vitamin A supplementation in improving periodontal health, though evidence remains inconclusive. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the protective role of vitamin A supplementation on periodontal health, focusing on outcomes such as gingival inflammation, pocket depth reduction, and alveolar bone preservation. Methods: A literature search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science up until May 2024, adhering to strict inclusion criteria that required studies to involve human participants diagnosed with periodontal diseases and to assess the impact of vitamin A through dietary intake or supplementation. This review excluded studies not explicitly focused on vitamin A and those lacking clear, quantifiable outcomes. The risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale for observational studies and the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for randomized controlled trials. Meta-analysis was performed to synthesize data and quantify the effectiveness of vitamin A on periodontal health outcomes. Results: A total of six studies were included in the final analysis with a total of 50,722 participants. The meta-analysis revealed a pooled odds ratio (OR) of 0.97 (95% CI: 0.94–1.00) for the association between vitamin A supplementation and periodontal health, indicating a slight protective effect. Notably, two high-quality studies reported ORs of 0.92 (95% CI: 0.85–1.00) and 0.83 (95% CI: 0.69–1.00), respectively, suggesting a potential reduction in periodontal disease risk with sufficient vitamin A levels. However, high heterogeneity (I2 = 86.93%) across studies indicates variability in outcomes, possibly influenced by demographic and lifestyle factors. Conclusions: Vitamin A supplementation may offer a marginal protective effect against periodontal disease, although results vary significantly across different populations and study designs. Further research is needed to clarify these relationships and to explore the mechanisms through which vitamin A influences periodontal health, considering the high degree of observed heterogeneity.
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 | 0.021 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.042 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| 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".