Impact of mediterranean diet adherence on periodontal disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Periodontal disease is a bacterial-driven inflammatory condition compromising the supporting anatomical structures of teeth and can result in tooth loss. The Mediterranean diet (MD), which emphasizes the consumption of healthy fats, fruits, vegetables, and whole grains, is thought to benefit periodontal health. This systematic review examines the evidence regarding the connection between MD adherence and periodontal disease-related outcomes. Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, this systematic review was registered with PROSPERO Comprehensive searches of SCOPUS, MEDLINE, The Cochrane Library, and Web of Science identified 15 eligible articles. Data extraction included study characteristics, intervention details, sample sizes, and outcomes related to periodontal health. The bias risk assessment was conducted using the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale in cohort, cross-sectional, and prospective/exploratory studies. In contrast, randomized controlled trials (RCTs) underwent evaluation utilizing the Cochrane risk of bias (RoB) tool – a meta-analysis employed a random-effects approach to accommodate the variability in treatment effect estimates among the included papers. The meta-analysis revealed that adherence to the MD significantly prevented low, moderate, and severe periodontal disease (Tau² =5.31, χ2 = 43804.00, P < 0.00001). Subgroup analyses demonstrated considerable reductions in gingival inflammation, with a standardized mean difference (SMD) of − 1.46, a 95% confidence interval of − 2.07 to − 0.09, and a P = 0.03, as well as reductions in bleeding on probing (P = 0.0001) among MD adherents. RoB assessments indicated good quality in two out of ten cross-sectional studies, with minimal bias in RCTs; however, one RCT presented with unclear risks. MD adherence is linked with decreased periodontal parameters, including gingival inflammation and plaque levels. These findings suggest that incorporating the MD into dietary recommendations may function as a beneficial adjunctive strategy in avoiding and controlling periodontal disease. Further research, particularly RCTs, is warranted to reinforce these associations.
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 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.018 | 0.039 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| 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".