Periodontal therapy for primary or secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease in people with periodontitis.

BACKGROUND: There may be an association between periodontitis and cardiovascular disease (CVD); however, the evidence so far has been uncertain about whether periodontal therapy can help prevent CVD in people diagnosed with chronic periodontitis. This is the third update of a review originally published in 2014, and most recently updated in 2019. Although there is a new multidimensional staging and grading system for periodontitis, we have retained the label 'chronic periodontitis' in this version of the review since available studies are based on the previous classification system. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the effects of periodontal therapy for primary or secondary prevention of CVD in people with chronic periodontitis. SEARCH METHODS: An information specialist searched five bibliographic databases up to 17 November 2021 and additional search methods were used to identify published, unpublished, and ongoing studies. We also searched the Chinese BioMedical Literature Database, the China National Knowledge Infrastructure, the VIP database, and Sciencepaper Online to March 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared active periodontal therapy to no periodontal treatment or a different periodontal treatment. We included studies of participants with a diagnosis of chronic periodontitis, either with CVD (secondary prevention studies) or without CVD (primary prevention studies). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors carried out the study identification, data extraction, and 'Risk of bias' assessment independently and in duplicate. They resolved any discrepancies by discussion, or with a third review author. We adopted a formal pilot-tested data extraction form, and used the Cochrane tool to assess the risk of bias in the studies. We used GRADE criteria to assess the certainty of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: There are no new completed RCTs on this topic since we published our last update in 2019. We included two RCTs in the review. One study focused on the primary prevention of CVD, and the other addressed secondary prevention. We evaluated both as being at high risk of bias. Our primary outcomes of interest were death (all-cause and CVD-related) and all cardiovascular events, measured at one-year follow-up or longer. For primary prevention of CVD in participants with periodontitis and metabolic syndrome, one study (165 participants) provided very low-certainty evidence. There was only one death in the study; we were unable to determine whether scaling and root planning plus amoxicillin and metronidazole could reduce incidence of all-cause death (Peto odds ratio (OR) 7.48, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.15 to 376.98), or all CVD-related death (Peto OR 7.48, 95% CI 0.15 to 376.98). We could not exclude the possibility that scaling and root planning plus amoxicillin and metronidazole could increase cardiovascular events (Peto OR 7.77, 95% CI 1.07 to 56.1) compared with supragingival scaling measured at 12-month follow-up. For secondary prevention of CVD, one pilot study randomised 303 participants to receive scaling and root planning plus oral hygiene instruction (periodontal treatment) or oral hygiene instruction plus a copy of radiographs and recommendation to follow-up with a dentist (community care). As cardiovascular events had been measured for different time periods of between 6 and 25 months, and only 37 participants were available with at least one-year follow-up, we did not consider the data to be sufficiently robust for inclusion in this review. The study did not evaluate all-cause death and all CVD-related death. We are unable to draw any conclusions about the effects of periodontal therapy on secondary prevention of CVD. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: For primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in people diagnosed with periodontitis and metabolic syndrome, very low-certainty evidence was inconclusive about the effects of scaling and root planning plus antibiotics compared to supragingival scaling. There is no reliable evidence available regarding secondary prevention of CVD in people diagnosed with chronic periodontitis and CVD. Further trials are needed to reach conclusions about whether treatment for periodontal disease can help prevent occurrence or recurrence of CVD.

Treatment of periodontitis for glycaemic control in people with diabetes mellitus.

BACKGROUND: Glycaemic control is a key component in diabetes mellitus (diabetes) management. Periodontitis is the inflammation and destruction of the underlying supporting tissues of the teeth. Some studies have suggested a bidirectional relationship between glycaemic control and periodontitis.  Treatment for periodontitis involves subgingival instrumentation, which is the professional removal of plaque, calculus, and debris from below the gumline using hand or ultrasonic instruments. This is known variously as scaling and root planing, mechanical debridement, or non-surgical periodontal treatment. Subgingival instrumentation is sometimes accompanied by local or systemic antimicrobials, and occasionally by surgical intervention to cut away gum tissue when periodontitis is severe. This review is part one of an update of a review published in 2010 and first updated in 2015, and evaluates periodontal treatment versus no intervention or usual care.  OBJECTIVES: To investigate the effects of periodontal treatment on glycaemic control in people with diabetes mellitus and periodontitis. SEARCH METHODS: An information specialist searched six bibliographic databases up to 7 September 2021 and additional search methods were used to identify published, unpublished, and ongoing studies.  SELECTION CRITERIA: We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of people with type 1 or type 2 diabetes mellitus and a diagnosis of periodontitis that compared subgingival instrumentation (sometimes with surgical treatment or adjunctive antimicrobial therapy or both) to no active intervention or 'usual care' (oral hygiene instruction, education or support interventions, and/or supragingival scaling (also known as PMPR, professional mechanical plaque removal)). To be included, the RCTs had to have lasted at least 3 months and have measured HbA1c (glycated haemoglobin). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two review authors independently examined the titles and abstracts retrieved by the search, selected the included trials, extracted data from included trials, and assessed included trials for risk of bias. Where necessary and possible, we attempted to contact study authors. Our primary outcome was blood glucose levels measured as glycated (glycosylated) haemoglobin assay (HbA1c), which can be reported as a percentage of total haemoglobin or as millimoles per mole (mmol/mol). Our secondary outcomes included adverse effects, periodontal indices (bleeding on probing, clinical attachment level, gingival index, plaque index, and probing pocket depth), quality of life, cost implications, and diabetic complications. MAIN RESULTS: We included 35 studies, which randomised 3249 participants to periodontal treatment or control. All studies used a parallel-RCT design and followed up participants for between 3 and 12 months. The studies focused on people with type 2 diabetes, other than one study that included participants with type 1 or type 2 diabetes. Most studies were mixed in terms of whether metabolic control of participants at baseline was good, fair, or poor. Most studies were carried out in secondary care.  We assessed two studies as being at low risk of bias, 14 studies at high risk of bias, and the risk of bias in 19 studies was unclear. We undertook a sensitivity analysis for our primary outcome based on studies at low risk of bias and this supported the main findings. Moderate-certainty evidence from 30 studies (2443 analysed participants) showed an absolute reduction in HbA1c of 0.43% (4.7 mmol/mol) 3 to 4 months after treatment of periodontitis (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.59% to -0.28%; -6.4 mmol/mol to -3.0 mmol/mol). Similarly, after 6 months, we found an absolute reduction in HbA1c of 0.30% (3.3 mmol/mol) (95% CI -0.52% to -0.08%; -5.7 mmol/mol to -0.9 mmol/mol; 12 studies, 1457 participants), and after 12 months, an absolute reduction of 0.50% (5.4 mmol/mol) (95% CI -0.55% to -0.45%; -6.0 mmol/mol to -4.9 mmol/mol; 1 study, 264 participants). Studies that measured adverse effects generally reported that no or only mild harms occurred, and any serious adverse events were similar in intervention and control arms. However, adverse effects of periodontal treatments were not evaluated in most studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Our 2022 update of this review has doubled the number of included studies and participants, which has led to a change in our conclusions about the primary outcome of glycaemic control and in our level of certainty in this conclusion. We now have moderate-certainty evidence that periodontal treatment using subgingival instrumentation improves glycaemic control in people with both periodontitis and diabetes by a clinically significant amount when compared to no treatment or usual care. Further trials evaluating periodontal treatment versus no treatment/usual care are unlikely to change the overall conclusion reached in this review.

Direct composite resin fillings versus amalgam fillings for permanent posterior teeth.

BACKGROUND: Traditionally, amalgam has been used for filling cavities in posterior teeth, and it continues to be the restorative material of choice in some low- and middle-income countries due to its effectiveness and relatively low cost. However, there are concerns over the use of amalgam restorations (fillings) with regard to mercury release in the body and the environmental impact of mercury disposal. Dental composite resin materials are an aesthetic alternative to amalgam, and their mechanical properties have developed sufficiently to make them suitable for restoring posterior teeth. Nevertheless, composite resin materials may have potential for toxicity to human health and the environment. The United Nations Environment Programme has established the Minamata Convention on Mercury, which is an international treaty that aims "to protect the [sic] human health and the environment from anthropogenic emissions and releases of mercury and mercury compounds". It entered into force in August 2017, and as of February 2021 had been ratified by 127 governments. Ratification involves committing to the adoption of at least two of nine proposed measures to phase down the use of mercury, including amalgam in dentistry. In light of this, we have updated a review originally published in 2014, expanding the scope of the review by undertaking an additional search for harms outcomes. Our review synthesises the results of studies that evaluate the long-term effectiveness and safety of amalgam versus composite resin restorations, and evaluates the level of certainty we can have in that evidence. OBJECTIVES: To examine the effects (i.e. efficacy and safety) of direct composite resin fillings versus amalgam fillings. SEARCH METHODS: An information specialist searched five bibliographic databases up to 16 February 2021 and used additional search methods to identify published, unpublished and ongoing studies SELECTION CRITERIA: To assess efficacy, we included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing dental composite resin with amalgam restorations in permanent posterior teeth that assessed restoration failure or survival at follow-up of at least three years. To assess safety, we sought non-randomised studies in addition to RCTs that directly compared composite resin and amalgam restorative materials and measured toxicity, sensitivity, allergy, or injury. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: We included a total of eight studies in this updated review, all of which were RCTs. Two studies used a parallel-group design, and six used a split-mouth design. We judged all of the included studies to be at high risk of bias due to lack of blinding and issues related to unit of analysis. We identified one new trial since the previous version of this review (2014), as well as eight additional papers that assessed safety, all of which related to the two parallel-group studies that were already included in the review. For our primary meta-analyses, we combined data from the two parallel-group trials, which involved 1645 composite restorations and 1365 amalgam restorations in 921 children. We found low-certainty evidence that composite resin restorations had almost double the risk of failure compared to amalgam restorations (risk ratio (RR) 1.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.52 to 2.35; P < 0.001), and were at much higher risk of secondary caries (RR 2.14, 95% CI 1.67 to 2.74; P < 0.001). We found low-certainty evidence that composite resin restorations were not more likely to result in restoration fracture (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.64; P = 0.66). Six trials used a split-mouth design. We considered these studies separately, as their reliability was compromised due to poor reporting, unit of analysis errors, and variability in methods and findings. Subgroup analysis showed that the findings were consistent with the results of the parallel-group studies. Three trials investigated possible harms of dental restorations. Higher urinary mercury levels were reported amongst children with amalgam restorations in two trials, but the levels were lower than what is known to be toxic. Some differences between amalgam and composite resin groups were observed on certain measures of renal, neuropsychological, and psychosocial function, physical development, and postoperative sensitivity; however, no consistent or clinically important harms were found. We considered that the vast number of comparisons made false-positive results likely. There was no evidence of differences between the amalgam and composite resin groups in neurological symptoms, immune function, and urinary porphyrin excretion. The evidence is of very low certainty, with most harms outcomes reported in only one trial. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Low-certainty evidence suggests that composite resin restorations may have almost double the failure rate of amalgam restorations. The risk of restoration fracture does not seem to be higher with composite resin restorations, but there is a much higher risk of developing secondary caries. Very low-certainty evidence suggests that there may be no clinically important differences in the safety profile of amalgam compared with composite resin dental restorations. This review supports the utility of amalgam restorations, and the results may be particularly useful in parts of the world where amalgam is still the material of choice to restore posterior teeth with proximal caries. Of note, however, is that composite resin materials have undergone important improvements in the years since the trials informing the primary analyses for this review were conducted. The global phase-down of dental amalgam via the Minamata Convention on Mercury is an important consideration when deciding between amalgam and composite resin dental materials. The choice of which dental material to use will depend on shared decision-making between dental providers and patients in the clinic setting, and local directives and protocols.

Probiotics for induction of remission in ulcerative colitis.

BACKGROUND: Ulcerative colitis is an inflammatory condition affecting the colon, with an annual incidence of approximately 10 to 20 per 100,000 people. The majority of people with ulcerative colitis can be put into remission, leaving a group who do not respond to first- or second-line therapies. There is a significant proportion of people who experience adverse effects with current therapies. Consequently, new alternatives for the treatment of ulcerative colitis are constantly being sought. Probiotics are live microbial feed supplements that may beneficially affect the host by improving intestinal microbial balance, enhancing gut barrier function and improving local immune response. OBJECTIVES: To assess the efficacy of probiotics compared with placebo or standard medical treatment (5-aminosalicylates, sulphasalazine or corticosteroids) for the induction of remission in people with active ulcerative colitis. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and two other databases on 31 October 2019. We contacted authors of relevant studies and manufacturers of probiotics regarding ongoing or unpublished trials that may be relevant to the review, and we searched ClinicalTrials.gov. We also searched references of trials for any additional trials. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the effectiveness of probiotics compared to standard treatments or placebo in the induction of remission of active ulcerative colitis. We considered both adults and children, with studies reporting outcomes of clinical, endoscopic, histologic or surgical remission as defined by study authors DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently conducted data extraction and 'Risk of bias' assessment of included studies. We analysed data using Review Manager 5. We expressed dichotomous and continuous outcomes as risk ratios (RRs) and mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE methodology. MAIN RESULTS: In this review, we included 14 studies (865 randomised participants) that met the inclusion criteria. Twelve of the studies looked at adult participants and two studies looked at paediatric participants with mild to moderate ulcerative colitis, the average age was between 12.5 and 47.7 years. The studies compared probiotics to placebo, probiotics to 5-ASA and a combination of probiotics plus 5-ASA compared to 5-ASA alone. Seven studies used a single probiotic strain and seven used a mixture of strains. The studies ranged from two weeks to 52 weeks. The risk of bias was high for all except two studies due to allocation concealment, blinding of participants, incomplete reports of outcome data and selective reporting. This led to GRADE ratings of the evidence ranging from moderate to very low. Probiotics versus placebo Probiotics may induce clinical remission when compared to placebo (RR 1.73, 95% CI 1.19 to 2.54; 9 studies, 594 participants; low-certainty evidence; downgraded due to imprecision and risk of bias, number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 5). Probiotics may lead to an improvement in clinical disease scores (RR 2.29, 95% CI 1.13 to 4.63; 2 studies, 54 participants; downgraded due to risk of bias and imprecision). There may be little or no difference in minor adverse events, but the evidence is of very low certainty (RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.42 to 2.59; 7 studies, 520 participants). Reported adverse events included abdominal bloating and discomfort. Probiotics did not lead to any serious adverse events in any of the seven studies that reported on it, however five adverse events were reported in the placebo arm of one study (RR 0.09, CI 0.01 to 1.66; 1 study, 526 participants; very low-certainty evidence; downgraded due to high risk of bias and imprecision). Probiotics may make little or no difference to withdrawals due to adverse events (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.42 to 1.72; 4 studies, 401 participants; low-certainty evidence). Probiotics versus 5-ASA There may be little or no difference in the induction of remission with probiotics when compared to 5-ASA (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.16; 1 study, 116 participants; low-certainty evidence; downgraded due to risk of bias and imprecision). There may be little or no difference in minor adverse events, but the evidence is of very low certainty (RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.53 to 3.33; 1 study, 116 participants). Reported adverse events included abdominal pain, nausea, headache and mouth ulcers. There were no serious adverse events with probiotics, however perforated sigmoid diverticulum and respiratory failure in a patient with severe emphysema were reported in the 5-ASA arm (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.01 to 4.22; 1 study, 116 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Probiotics combined with 5-ASA versus 5-ASA alone Low-certainty evidence from a single study shows that when combined with 5-ASA, probiotics may slightly improve the induction of remission (based on the Sunderland disease activity index) compared to 5-ASA alone (RR 1.22 CI 1.01 to 1.47; 1 study, 84 participants; low-certainty evidence; downgraded due to unclear risk of bias and imprecision). No information about adverse events was reported. Time to remission, histological and biochemical outcomes were sparsely reported in the studies. None of the other secondary outcomes (progression to surgery, need for additional therapy, quality of life scores, or steroid withdrawal) were reported in any of the studies. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Low-certainty evidence suggests that probiotics may induce clinical remission in active ulcerative colitis when compared to placebo. There may be little or no difference in clinical remission with probiotics alone compared to 5-ASA. There is limited evidence from a single study which failed to provide a definition of remission, that probiotics may slightly improve the induction of remission when used in combination with 5-ASA. There was no evidence to assess whether probiotics are effective in people with severe and more extensive disease, or if specific preparations are superior to others. Further targeted and appropriately designed RCTs are needed to address the gaps in the evidence base. In particular, appropriate powering of studies and the use of standardised participant groups and outcome measures in line with the wider field are needed, as well as reporting to minimise risk of bias.

Periodontal therapy for primary or secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease in people with periodontitis.

BACKGROUND: There may be an association between periodontitis and cardiovascular disease (CVD); however, the evidence so far has been uncertain about whether periodontal therapy can help prevent CVD in people diagnosed with chronic periodontitis. This is the second update of a review originally published in 2014, and first updated in 2017. Although there is a new multidimensional staging and grading system for periodontitis, we have retained the label 'chronic periodontitis' in this version of the review since available studies are based on the previous classification system. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the effects of periodontal therapy for primary or secondary prevention of CVD in people with chronic periodontitis. SEARCH METHODS: Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL, two trials registries, and the grey literature to September 2019. We placed no restrictions on the language or date of publication. We also searched the Chinese BioMedical Literature Database, the China National Knowledge Infrastructure, the VIP database, and Sciencepaper Online to August 2019. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared active periodontal therapy to no periodontal treatment or a different periodontal treatment. We included studies of participants with a diagnosis of chronic periodontitis, either with CVD (secondary prevention studies) or without CVD (primary prevention studies). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors carried out the study identification, data extraction, and 'Risk of bias' assessment independently and in duplicate. They resolved any discrepancies by discussion, or with a third review author. We adopted a formal pilot-tested data extraction form, and used the Cochrane tool to assess the risk of bias in the studies. We used GRADE criteria to assess the certainty of the evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included two RCTs in the review. One study focused on the primary prevention of CVD, and the other addressed secondary prevention. We evaluated both as being at high risk of bias. Our primary outcomes of interest were death (all-cause and CVD-related) and all cardiovascular events, measured at one-year follow-up or longer. For primary prevention of CVD in participants with periodontitis and metabolic syndrome, one study (165 participants) provided very low-certainty evidence. There was only one death in the study; we were unable to determine whether scaling and root planning plus amoxicillin and metronidazole could reduce incidence of all-cause death (Peto odds ratio (OR) 7.48, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.15 to 376.98), or all CVD-related death (Peto OR 7.48, 95% CI 0.15 to 376.98). We could not exclude the possibility that scaling and root planning plus amoxicillin and metronidazole could increase cardiovascular events (Peto OR 7.77, 95% CI 1.07 to 56.1) compared with supragingival scaling measured at 12-month follow-up. For secondary prevention of CVD, one pilot study randomised 303 participants to receive scaling and root planning plus oral hygiene instruction (periodontal treatment) or oral hygiene instruction plus a copy of radiographs and recommendation to follow-up with a dentist (community care). As cardiovascular events had been measured for different time periods of between 6 and 25 months, and only 37 participants were available with at least one-year follow-up, we did not consider the data to be sufficiently robust for inclusion in this review. The study did not evaluate all-cause death and all CVD-related death. We are unable to draw any conclusions about the effects of periodontal therapy on secondary prevention of CVD. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: For primary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD) in people diagnosed with periodontitis and metabolic syndrome, very low-certainty evidence was inconclusive about the effects of scaling and root planning plus antibiotics compared to supragingival scaling. There is no reliable evidence available regarding secondary prevention of CVD in people diagnosed with chronic periodontitis and CVD. Further trials are needed to reach conclusions about whether treatment for periodontal disease can help prevent occurrence or recurrence of CVD.

Treating periodontal disease for preventing adverse birth outcomes in pregnant women.

BACKGROUND: Periodontal disease has been linked with a number of conditions, such as cardiovascular disease, stroke, diabetes and adverse pregnancy outcomes, all likely through systemic inflammatory pathways. It is common in women of reproductive age and gum conditions tend to worsen during pregnancy. Some evidence from observational studies suggests that periodontal intervention may reduce adverse pregnancy outcomes. There is need for a comprehensive Cochrane review of randomised trials to assess the effect of periodontal treatment on perinatal and maternal health. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of treating periodontal disease in pregnant women in order to prevent or reduce perinatal and maternal morbidity and mortality. SEARCH METHODS: Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 6 October 2016), Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (to 7 October 2016), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 9) in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 6 October 2016), Embase Ovid (1980 to 6 October 2016), and LILACS BIREME Virtual Health Library (Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Information database; 1982 to 6 October 2016). ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials on 6 October 2016. We placed no restrictions on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the effects of periodontal treatment in preventing or reducing perinatal and maternal morbidity and mortality. We excluded studies where obstetric outcomes were not reported. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts and extracted data using a prepiloted data extraction form. Missing data were obtained by contacting authors and risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane's 'Risk of bias' tool. Where appropriate, results of comparable trials were pooled and expressed as risk ratios (RR) or mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) . The random-effects model was used for pooling except where there was an insufficient number of studies. We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: There were 15 RCTs (n = 7161 participants) meeting our inclusion criteria. All the included studies were at high risk of bias mostly due to lack of blinding and imbalance in baseline characteristics of participants. The studies recruited pregnant women from prenatal care facilities who had periodontitis (14 studies) or gingivitis (1 study).The two main comparisons were: periodontal treatment versus no treatment during pregnancy and periodontal treatment versus alternative periodontal treatment. The head-to-head comparison between periodontal treatments assessed a more intensive treatment versus a less intensive one.Eleven studies compared periodontal treatment with no treatment during pregnancy. The meta-analysis shows no clear difference in preterm birth < 37 weeks (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.10; 5671 participants; 11 studies; low-quality evidence) between periodontal treatment and no treatment. There is low-quality evidence that periodontal treatment may reduce low birth weight < 2500 g (9.70% with periodontal treatment versus 12.60% without treatment; RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.95; 3470 participants; 7 studies).It is unclear whether periodontal treatment leads to a difference in preterm birth < 35 weeks (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.76; 2557 participants; 2 studies; ) and < 32 weeks (RR 1.35, 95% CI 0.78 to 2.32; 2755 participants; 3 studies), low birth weight < 1500 g (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.70; 2550 participants; 2 studies), perinatal mortality (including fetal and neonatal deaths up to the first 28 days after birth) (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.43; 5320 participants; 7 studies; very low-quality evidence), and pre-eclampsia (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.62; 2946 participants; 3 studies; very low-quality evidence). There is no evidence of a difference in small for gestational age (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.16; 3610 participants; 3 studies; low-quality evidence) when periodontal treatment is compared with no treatment.Four studies compared periodontal treatment with alternative periodontal treatment. Data pooling was not possible due to clinical heterogeneity. The outcomes reported were preterm birth < 37 weeks, preterm birth < 35 weeks, birth weight < 2500 g, birth weight < 1500 g and perinatal mortality (very low-quality evidence). It is unclear whether there is a difference in < 37 weeks, preterm birth < 35 weeks, birth weight < 2500 g, birth weight < 1500 g and perinatal mortality when different periodontal treatments are compared because the quality of evidence is very low.Maternal mortality and adverse effects of the intervention did not occur in any of the studies that reported on either of the outcomes. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: It is not clear if periodontal treatment during pregnancy has an impact on preterm birth (low-quality evidence). There is low-quality evidence that periodontal treatment may reduce low birth weight (< 2500 g), however, our confidence in the effect estimate is limited. There is insufficient evidence to determine which periodontal treatment is better in preventing adverse obstetric outcomes. Future research should aim to report periodontal outcomes alongside obstetric outcomes.

Periodontal therapy for the management of cardiovascular disease in patients with chronic periodontitis.

BACKGROUND: There is an association between chronic periodontitis and cardiovascular disease (CVD). However, it is not known whether periodontal therapy could prevent or manage CVD in patients with chronic periodontitis. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this systematic review was to investigate the effects of periodontal therapy in preventing the occurrence of, and management or recurrence of, CVD in patients with chronic periodontitis. SEARCH METHODS: Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 31 August 2017), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library, 2017, Issue 7), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 31 August 2017), Embase Ovid (1980 to 31 August 2017) and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL EBSCO) (1937 to 31 August 2017) . The US National Institutes of Health Trials Registry (ClinicalTrials.gov), the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform and Open Grey were searched for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.We also searched the Chinese BioMedical Literature Database (1978 to 27 August 2017), the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (1994 to 27 August 2017), the VIP database (1989 to 27 August 2017) and Sciencepaper Online (2003 to 27 August 2017). SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs were considered eligible. Studies were selected if they included patients with a diagnosis of chronic periodontitis and previous CVD (secondary prevention studies) or no CVD (primary prevention studies); patients in the intervention group received active periodontal therapy compared to maintenance therapy, no periodontal treatment or another kind of periodontal treatment in the control group. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors carried out the study identification, data extraction and risk of bias assessment independently and in duplicate. Any discrepancies between the two authors were resolved by discussion or with a third review author. A formal pilot-tested data extraction form was adopted for the data extraction, and the Cochrane tool for risk of bias assessment was used for the critical appraisal of the literature. MAIN RESULTS: No studies were identified that assessed primary prevention of CVD in people with periodontitis. One study involving 303 participants with ≥ 50% blockage of one coronary artery or a coronary event within three years, but not the three months prior, was included. The study was at high risk of bias due to deviation from the protocol treatment allocation and lack of follow-up data. The trial compared scaling and root planing (SRP) with community care for a follow-up period of six to 25 months. No data on deaths (all-cause or CVD-related) were reported. There was insufficient evidence to determine the effect of SRP and community care in reducing the risk of CVD recurrence in patients with chronic periodontitis (risk ratio (RR) 0.72; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.23 to 2.22; very low quality evidence). The effects of SRP compared with community care on high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP) (mean difference (MD) 0.62; -1.45 to 2.69), the number of patients with high hs-CRP (RR 0.77; 95% CI 0.32 to 1.85) and adverse events (RR 9.06; 95% CI 0.49 to 166.82) were also not statistically significant. The study did not assess modifiable cardiovascular risk factors, other blood test results, heart function parameters or revascularisation procedures. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found very low quality evidence that was insufficient to support or refute whether periodontal therapy can prevent the recurrence of CVD in the long term in patients with chronic periodontitis. No evidence on primary prevention was found.

Interventions for the cessation of non-nutritive sucking habits in children.

BACKGROUND: Comforting behaviours, such as the use of pacifiers (dummies, soothers), blankets and finger or thumb sucking, are common in babies and young children. These comforting habits, which can be referred to collectively as 'non-nutritive sucking habits' (NNSHs), tend to stop as children get older, under their own impetus or with support from parents and carers. However, if the habit continues whilst the permanent dentition is becoming established, it can contribute to, or cause, development of a malocclusion (abnormal bite). A diverse variety of approaches has been used to help children with stopping a NNSH. These include advice, removal of the comforting object, fitting an orthodontic appliance to interfere with the habit, application of an aversive taste to the digit or behaviour modification techniques. Some of these interventions are easier to apply than others and less disturbing for the child and their parent; some are more applicable to a particular type of habit.  OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of the review was to evaluate the effects of different interventions for cessation of NNSHs in children. The secondary objectives were to determine which interventions work most quickly and are the most effective in terms of child and parent- or carer-centred outcomes of least discomfort and psychological distress from the intervention, as well as the dental measures of malocclusion (reduction in anterior open bite, overjet and correction of posterior crossbite) and cost-effectiveness. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following electronic databases: the Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register (to 8 October 2014), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2014, Issue 9), MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to 8 October 2014), EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 8 October 2014), PsycINFO via OVID (1980 to 8 October 2014) and CINAHL via EBSCO (1937 to 8 October 2014), the US National Institutes of Health Trials Register (Clinical Trials.gov) (to 8 October 2014) and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (to 8 October 2014). There were no restrictions regarding language or date of publication in the searches of the electronic databases. We screened reference lists from relevant articles and contacted authors of eligible studies for further information where necessary. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials in children with a non-nutritive sucking habit that compared one intervention with another intervention or a no-intervention control group. The primary outcome of interest was cessation of the habit. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. Three review authors were involved in screening the records identified; two undertook data extraction, two assessed risk of bias and two assessed overall quality of the evidence base. Most of the data could not be combined and only one meta-analysis could be carried out. MAIN RESULTS: We included six trials, which recruited 252 children (aged two and a half to 18 years), but presented follow-up data on only 246 children. Digit sucking was the only NNSH assessed in the studies. Five studies compared single or multiple interventions with a no-intervention or waiting list control group and one study made a head-to-head comparison. All the studies were at high risk of bias due to major limitations in methodology and reporting. There were small numbers of participants in the studies (20 to 38 participants per study) and follow-up times ranged from one to 36 months. Short-term outcomes were observed under one year post intervention and long-term outcomes were observed at one year or more post intervention. Orthodontics appliance (with or without psychological intervention) versus no treatmentTwo trials that assessed this comparison evaluated our primary outcome of cessation of habit. One of the trials evaluated palatal crib and one used a mix of palatal cribs and arches. Both trials were at high risk of bias. The orthodontic appliance was more likely to stop digit sucking than no treatment, whether it was used over the short term (risk ratio (RR) 6.53, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.67 to 25.53; two trials, 70 participants) or long term (RR 5.81, 95% CI 1.49 to 22.66; one trial, 37 participants) or used in combination with a psychological intervention (RR 6.36, 95% CI 0.97 to 41.96; one trial, 32 participants). Psychological intervention versus no treatmentTwo trials (78 participants) at high risk of bias evaluated positive reinforcement (alone or in combination with gaining the child's co-operation) or negative reinforcement compared with no treatment. Pooling of data showed a statistically significant difference in favour of the psychological interventions in the short term (RR 6.16, 95% CI 1.18 to 32.10; I(2) = 0%). One study, with data from 57 participants, reported on the long-term effect of positive and negative reinforcement on sucking cessation and found a statistically significant difference in favour of the psychological interventions (RR 6.25, 95% CI 1.65 to 23.65). Head-to-head comparisonsOnly one trial demonstrated a clear difference in effectiveness between different active interventions. This trial, which had only 22 participants, found a higher likelihood of cessation of habit with palatal crib than palatal arch (RR 0.13, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.59). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This review found low quality evidence that orthodontic appliances (palatal arch and palatal crib) and psychological interventions (including positive and negative reinforcement) are effective at improving sucking cessation in children. There is very low quality evidence that palatal crib is more effective than palatal arch. This review has highlighted the need for high quality trials evaluating interventions to stop non-nutritive sucking habits to be conducted and the need for a consolidated, standardised approach to reporting outcomes in these trials.

Treatment of periodontal disease for glycaemic control in people with diabetes mellitus.

BACKGROUND: Glycaemic control is a key issue in the care of people with diabetes mellitus (DM). Periodontal disease is the inflammation and destruction of the underlying supporting tissues of the teeth. Some studies have suggested a bidirectional relationship between glycaemic control and periodontal disease. This review updates the previous version published in 2010. OBJECTIVES: The objective is to investigate the effect of periodontal therapy on glycaemic control in people with diabetes mellitus. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following electronic databases: the Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register (to 31 December 2014), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (Cochrane Library 2014, Issue 11), MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to 31 December 2014), EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 31 December 2014), LILACS via BIREME (1982 to 31 December 2014), and CINAHL via EBSCO (1937 to 31 December 2014). ZETOC (1993 to 31 December 2014) and Web of Knowledge (1990 to 31 December 2014) were searched for conference proceedings. Additionally, two periodontology journals were handsearched for completeness, Annals of Periodontology (1996 to 2003) and Periodontology 2000 (1993 to 2003). We searched the US National Institutes of Health Trials Registry (http://clinicaltrials.gov) and the WHO Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases. SELECTION CRITERIA: We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of people with type 1 or type 2 DM (T1DM/T2DM) with a diagnosis of periodontitis. Interventions included periodontal treatments such as mechanical debridement, surgical treatment and antimicrobial therapy. Two broad comparisons were proposed:1. periodontal therapy versus no active intervention/usual care;2. periodontal therapy versus alternative periodontal therapy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: For this review update, at least two review authors independently examined the titles and abstracts retrieved by the search, selected the included trials, extracted data from included trials and assessed included trials for risk of bias.Our primary outcome was blood glucose levels measured as glycated (glycosylated) haemoglobin assay (HbA1c).Our secondary outcomes included adverse effects, periodontal indices (bleeding on probing (BOP), clinical attachment level (CAL), gingival index (GI), plaque index (PI) and probing pocket depth (PPD)), cost implications and diabetic complications. MAIN RESULTS: We included 35 studies (including seven from the previous version of the review), which included 2565 participants in total. All studies used a parallel RCT design, and 33 studies (94%) only targeted T2DM patients. There was variation between studies with regards to included age groups (ages 18 to 80), duration of follow-up (3 to 12 months), use of antidiabetic therapy, and included participants' baseline HbA1c levels (from 5.5% to 13.1%).We assessed 29 studies (83%) as being at high risk of bias, two studies (6%) as being at low risk of bias, and four studies (11%) as unclear. Thirty-four of the studies provided data suitable for analysis under one or both of the two comparisons.Comparison 1: low quality evidence from 14 studies (1499 participants) comparing periodontal therapy with no active intervention/usual care demonstrated that mean HbA1c was 0.29% lower (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.48% to 0.10% lower) 3 to 4 months post-treatment, and 0.02% lower after 6 months (five studies, 826 participants; 95% CI 0.20% lower to 0.16% higher).Comparison 2: 21 studies (920 participants) compared different periodontal therapies with each other. There was only very low quality evidence for the multiple head-to-head comparisons, the majority of which were unsuitable to be pooled, and provided no clear evidence of a benefit for one periodontal intervention over another. We were able to pool the specific comparison between scaling and root planing (SRP) plus antimicrobial versus SRP and there was no consistent evidence that the addition of antimicrobials to SRP was of any benefit to delivering SRP alone (mean HbA1c 0.00% lower: 12 studies, 450 participants; 95% CI 0.22% lower to 0.22% higher) at 3-4 months post-treatment, or after 6 months (mean HbA1c 0.04% lower: five studies, 206 patients; 95% CI 0.41% lower to 0.32% higher).Less than half of the studies measured adverse effects. The evidence was insufficient to conclude whether any of the treatments were associated with harm. No other patient-reported outcomes (e.g. quality of life) were measured by the included studies, and neither were cost implications or diabetic complications.Studies showed varying degrees of success with regards to achieving periodontal health, with some showing high levels of residual inflammation following treatment. Statistically significant improvements were shown for all periodontal indices (BOP, CAL, GI, PI and PPD) at 3-4 and 6 months in comparison 1; however, this was less clear for individual comparisons within the broad category of comparison 2. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is low quality evidence that the treatment of periodontal disease by SRP does improve glycaemic control in people with diabetes, with a mean percentage reduction in HbA1c of 0.29% at 3-4 months; however, there is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that this is maintained after 4 months.There was no evidence to support that one periodontal therapy was more effective than another in improving glycaemic control in people with diabetes mellitus.In clinical practice, ongoing professional periodontal treatment will be required to maintain clinical improvements beyond 6 months. Further research is required to determine whether adjunctive drug therapies should be used with periodontal treatment. Future RCTs should evaluate this, provide longer follow-up periods, and consider the inclusion of a third 'no treatment' control arm.Larger, well conducted and clearly reported studies are needed in order to understand the potential of periodontal treatment to improve glycaemic control among people with diabetes mellitus. In addition, it will be important in future studies that the intervention is effective in reducing periodontal inflammation and maintaining it at lowered levels throughout the period of observation.

Water fluoridation for the prevention of dental caries.

BACKGROUND: Dental caries is a major public health problem in most industrialised countries, affecting 60% to 90% of school children. Community water fluoridation was initiated in the USA in 1945 and is currently practised in about 25 countries around the world; health authorities consider it to be a key strategy for preventing dental caries. Given the continued interest in this topic from health professionals, policy makers and the public, it is important to update and maintain a systematic review that reflects contemporary evidence. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effects of water fluoridation (artificial or natural) on the prevention of dental caries.To evaluate the effects of water fluoridation (artificial or natural) on dental fluorosis. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following electronic databases: The Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (to 19 February 2015); The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; Issue 1, 2015); MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to 19 February 2015); EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 19 February 2015); Proquest (to 19 February 2015); Web of Science Conference Proceedings (1990 to 19 February 2015); ZETOC Conference Proceedings (1993 to 19 February 2015). We searched the US National Institutes of Health Trials Registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization's WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials. There were no restrictions on language of publication or publication status in the searches of the electronic databases. SELECTION CRITERIA: For caries data, we included only prospective studies with a concurrent control that compared at least two populations - one receiving fluoridated water and the other non-fluoridated water - with outcome(s) evaluated at at least two points in time. For the assessment of fluorosis, we included any type of study design, with concurrent control, that compared populations exposed to different water fluoride concentrations. We included populations of all ages that received fluoridated water (naturally or artificially fluoridated) or non-fluoridated water. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used an adaptation of the Cochrane 'Risk of bias' tool to assess risk of bias in the included studies.We included the following caries indices in the analyses: decayed, missing and filled teeth (dmft (deciduous dentition) and DMFT (permanent dentition)), and proportion caries free in both dentitions. For dmft and DMFT analyses we calculated the difference in mean change scores between the fluoridated and control groups. For the proportion caries free we calculated the difference in the proportion caries free between the fluoridated and control groups.For fluorosis data we calculated the log odds and presented them as probabilities for interpretation. MAIN RESULTS: A total of 155 studies met the inclusion criteria; 107 studies provided sufficient data for quantitative synthesis.The results from the caries severity data indicate that the initiation of water fluoridation results in reductions in dmft of 1.81 (95% CI 1.31 to 2.31; 9 studies at high risk of bias, 44,268 participants) and in DMFT of 1.16 (95% CI 0.72 to 1.61; 10 studies at high risk of bias, 78,764 participants). This translates to a 35% reduction in dmft and a 26% reduction in DMFT compared to the median control group mean values. There were also increases in the percentage of caries free children of 15% (95% CI 11% to 19%; 10 studies, 39,966 participants) in deciduous dentition and 14% (95% CI 5% to 23%; 8 studies, 53,538 participants) in permanent dentition. The majority of studies (71%) were conducted prior to 1975 and the widespread introduction of the use of fluoride toothpaste.There is insufficient information to determine whether initiation of a water fluoridation programme results in a change in disparities in caries across socioeconomic status (SES) levels.There is insufficient information to determine the effect of stopping water fluoridation programmes on caries levels.No studies that aimed to determine the effectiveness of water fluoridation for preventing caries in adults met the review's inclusion criteria.With regard to dental fluorosis, we estimated that for a fluoride level of 0.7 ppm the percentage of participants with fluorosis of aesthetic concern was approximately 12% (95% CI 8% to 17%; 40 studies, 59,630 participants). This increases to 40% (95% CI 35% to 44%) when considering fluorosis of any level (detected under highly controlled, clinical conditions; 90 studies, 180,530 participants). Over 97% of the studies were at high risk of bias and there was substantial between-study variation. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is very little contemporary evidence, meeting the review's inclusion criteria, that has evaluated the effectiveness of water fluoridation for the prevention of caries.The available data come predominantly from studies conducted prior to 1975, and indicate that water fluoridation is effective at reducing caries levels in both deciduous and permanent dentition in children. Our confidence in the size of the effect estimates is limited by the observational nature of the study designs, the high risk of bias within the studies and, importantly, the applicability of the evidence to current lifestyles. The decision to implement a water fluoridation programme relies upon an understanding of the population's oral health behaviour (e.g. use of fluoride toothpaste), the availability and uptake of other caries prevention strategies, their diet and consumption of tap water and the movement/migration of the population. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether water fluoridation results in a change in disparities in caries levels across SES. We did not identify any evidence, meeting the review's inclusion criteria, to determine the effectiveness of water fluoridation for preventing caries in adults.There is insufficient information to determine the effect on caries levels of stopping water fluoridation programmes.There is a significant association between dental fluorosis (of aesthetic concern or all levels of dental fluorosis) and fluoride level. The evidence is limited due to high risk of bias within the studies and substantial between-study variation.

Direct composite resin fillings versus amalgam fillings for permanent or adult posterior teeth.

BACKGROUND: Amalgam has been the traditional material for filling cavities in posterior teeth for the last 150 years and, due to its effectiveness and cost, amalgam is still the restorative material of choice in certain parts of the world. In recent times, however, there have been concerns over the use of amalgam restorations (fillings), relating to the mercury release in the body and the environmental impact following its disposal. Resin composites have become an esthetic alternative to amalgam restorations and there has been a remarkable improvement of its mechanical properties to restore posterior teeth.There is need to review new evidence comparing the effectiveness of both restorations. OBJECTIVES: To examine the effects of direct composite resin fillings versus amalgam fillings for permanent posterior teeth, primarily on restoration failure. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (to 22 October 2013), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 9), MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to 22 October 2013), EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 22 October 2013), and LILACs via BIREME Virtual Health Library (1980 to 22 October 2013). We applied no restrictions on language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases. We contacted manufacturers of dental materials to obtain any unpublished studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomized controlled trials comparing dental resin composites with dental amalgams in permanent posterior teeth. We excluded studies having a follow-up period of less than three years. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. MAIN RESULTS: Of the 2205 retrieved references, we included seven trials (10 articles) in the systematic review. Two trials were parallel group studies involving 1645 composite restorations and 1365 amalgam restorations (921 children) in the analysis. The other five trials were split-mouth studies involving 1620 composite restorations and 570 amalgam restorations in an unclear number of children. Due to major problems with the reporting of the data for the five split-mouth trials, the primary analysis is based on the two parallel group trials. We judged all seven trials to be at high risk of bias and we analyzed 3265 composite restorations and 1935 amalgam restorations.The parallel group trials indicated that resin restorations had a significantly higher risk of failure than amalgam restorations (risk ratio (RR) 1.89, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.52 to 2.35, P value < 0.001 (fixed-effect model) (low-quality evidence)) and increased risk of secondary caries (RR 2.14, 95% CI 1.67 to 2.74, P value < 0.001 (low-quality evidence)) but no evidence of an increased risk of restoration fracture (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.64, P value = 0.66 (moderate-quality evidence)). The results from the split-mouth trials were consistent with those of the parallel group trials.Adverse effects of dental restorations were reported in two trials. The outcomes considered were neurobehavioral function, renal function, psychosocial function, and physical development. The investigators found no difference in adverse effects between composite and amalgam restorations. However, the results should be interpreted with caution as none of the outcomes were reported in more than one trial. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is low-quality evidence to suggest that resin composites lead to higher failure rates and risk of secondary caries than amalgam restorations. This review reinforces the benefit of amalgam restorations and the results are particularly useful in parts of the world where amalgam is still the material of choice to restore posterior teeth with proximal caries. Though the review found insufficient evidence to support or refute any adverse effects amalgam may have on patients, new research is unlikely to change opinion on its safety and due to the decision for a global phase-down of amalgam (Minamata Convention on Mercury) general opinion on its safety is unlikely to change.

Periodontal therapy for the management of cardiovascular disease in patients with chronic periodontitis.

BACKGROUND: There is an association between chronic periodontitis and cardiovascular disease (CVD). However, it is not known whether periodontal therapy could prevent or manage CVD in patients with chronic periodontitis. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this systematic review was to investigate the effects of periodontal therapy in preventing the occurrence of, and management or recurrence of, CVD in patients with chronic periodontitis. SEARCH METHODS: The electronic databases that were searched were the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (to 7 April 2014), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2014, Issue 3), MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to 7 April 2014), EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 7 April 2014), CINAHL via EBSCO (1937 to 7 April 2014), OpenGrey (to 7 April 2014), the Chinese BioMedical Literature Database (1978 to April 2014), the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (1994 to April 2014) and the VIP database (1989 to April 2014). We searched the US National Institutes of Health Trials Register, the World Health Organization (WHO) Clinical Trials Registry Platform and Sciencepaper Online for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs were considered eligible. Studies were selected if they included patients with a diagnosis of chronic periodontitis and previous CVD (secondary prevention studies) or no CVD (primary prevention studies); patients in the intervention group received active periodontal therapy compared to maintenance therapy, no periodontal treatment or another kind of periodontal treatment in the control group. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors carried out the study identification, data extraction and risk of bias assessment independently and in duplicate. Any discrepancies between the two authors were resolved by discussion or with a third review author. A formal pilot-tested data extraction form was adopted for the data extraction, and the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for risk of bias assessment was used for the critical appraisal of the literature. MAIN RESULTS: No studies were identified that assessed primary prevention of CVD in people with periodontitis. One study involving 303 participants with ≥ 50% blockage of one coronary artery or a coronary event within three years, but not the three months prior, was included. The study was at high risk of bias due to deviation from the protocol treatment allocation and lack of follow-up data. The trial compared scaling and root planing (SRP) with community care for a follow-up period of six to 25 months. No data on deaths (all-cause or CVD-related) were reported. There was insufficient evidence to determine the effect of SRP and community care in reducing the risk of CVD recurrence in patients with chronic periodontitis (risk ratio (RR) 0.72; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.23 to 2.22; very low quality evidence). The effects of SRP compared with community care on high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP) (mean difference (MD) 0.62; -1.45 to 2.69), the number of patients with high hs-CRP (RR 0.77; 95% CI 0.32 to 1.85) and adverse events (RR 9.06; 95% CI 0.49 to 166.82) were also not statistically significant. The study did not assess modifiable cardiovascular risk factors, other blood test results, heart function parameters or revascularisation procedures. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found very low quality evidence that was insufficient to support or refute whether periodontal therapy can prevent the recurrence of CVD in the long term in patients with chronic periodontitis. No evidence on primary prevention was found.