Dental Care Of The Pregnant Patient: An Update Of Guidelines And Recommendations.

Pregnancy is a dynamic state marked by several physiological changes. Oral healthcare in pregnancy is often avoided and misunderstood, with healthcare professionals struggling to interpret the safety and appropriateness of dental treatment during this period. Despite international guidelines and consensus reports indicating that preventive and restorative dental treatment are safe and essential, there is still a widespread belief among healthcare professionals and general population in Pakistan that dental treatment during pregnancy may pose damage to the foetus. Over the past three decades, as human knowledge of the biology behind periodontal diseases broadened, its systemic impact upon various physiological states is better understood and management protocols are accordingly formulated. Lack of knowledge among dentists regarding the timing of routine dental treatment, avoidance of certain medications and poor understanding of the clinical changes in the periodontium of the pregnant patient needs to be addressed so that timely treatment is provided. The current narrative review was planned to highlight the physiological and pathological changes that may occur in the oral cavity of a pregnant patient.

Efficacy of photodynamic therapy versus antibiotics as an adjunct to scaling and root planing in the treatment of periodontitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: To determine whether treatment with antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) as an adjunct to scaling and root planing (SRP) yield better clinical periodontal outcomes than antibiotics (AB) as adjunct to SRP in periodontitis. METHODS: Electronic searches were conducted in databases (MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, SCOPUS, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register databases) up to and including April 2017. RESULTS: Five randomized trials were included. All studies used the combined approach aPDT+SRP and AB+SRP in the test and control group respectively. The follow up period ranged from 12 to 48 weeks. All studies used diode lasers. The wavelengths, power density and duration of irradiation used were 670 nanometre, 75 milliwatts per square centimeters and 60s respectively. None of the studies showed additional benefits of aPDT at follow up. Considering the effects of adjunctive aPDT as compared to AB, a high degree of heterogeneity for periodontal probing depth (PPD) (p<0.0001, I2=87.47%) was noticed among both the groups. Meta-analysis showed significant clinical attachment level (CAL) gain (WMD=0.60, 95% CI=0.25 to 0.95, p=0.001), and not PPD reduction (WMD=0.67, 95% CI=-0.36 to 1.71, p=0.204) for aPDT as compared to AB at follow up. CONCLUSION: It remains debatable whether aPDT is more effective as compared to adjunctive AB in the treatment of periodontitis, given that the scientific evidence is weak. Precautions must be exercised when interpreting the results of this study due to the small sample size and high heterogeneity among studies.