BSP Implementation of Prevention and Treatment of Peri-implant Diseases - The EFP S3 Level Clinical Practice Guideline.

OBJECTIVES: to adapt the supranational European Federation of Periodontology (EFP) Prevention and Treatment of Peri-implant Diseases - The EFP S3 Level Clinical Practice Guideline for UK healthcare environment, taking into account a broad range of views from stakeholders and patients. SOURCES: This UK version, based on the supranational EFP guideline [1] published in the Journal of Clinical Periodontology, was developed using S3-level methodology, combining assessment of formal evidence from 13 systematic reviews with a moderated consensus process of a representative group of stakeholders, and accounts for health equality, environmental factors and clinical effectiveness. It encompasses 55 clinical recommendations for the Prevention and Treatment of Peri-implant Diseases, based on the classification for periodontal and peri-implant diseases and conditions [2]. METHODOLOGY: The UK version was developed from the source guideline using a formal process called the GRADE ADOLOPMENT framework. This framework allows for adoption (unmodified acceptance), adaptation (acceptance with modifications) and the de novo development of clinical recommendations. Using this framework, following the S3-process, the underlying evidence was updated and a representative guideline group of 111 delegates from 26 stakeholder organisations was assembled into four working groups. Following the formal S3-process, all clinical recommendations were formally assessed for their applicability to the UK and adoloped accordingly. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: Using the ADOLOPMENT protocol, a UK version of the EFP S3-level clinical practice guideline for the Prevention and Treatment of Peri-implant Diseases was developed. This guideline delivers evidence- and consensus-based clinical recommendations of direct relevance to the UK healthcare community including the public. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The S3-level-guidelines combine evaluation of formal evidence, grading of recommendations and synthesis with clinical expertise of a broad range of stakeholders. The international S3-level-guideline was implemented for direct clinical applicability in the UK healthcare system, facilitating a consistent, interdisciplinary, evidence-based approach with public involvement for the prevention and treatment of peri-implant diseases.

Relevant domains, core outcome sets and measurements for implant dentistry clinical trials: The Implant Dentistry Core Outcome Set and Measurement (ID-COSM) international consensus report.

AIM: Lack of consistently reported outcomes limits progress in evidence-based implant dentistry and quality of care. The objective of this initiative was to develop a core outcome set (COS) and measurements for implant dentistry clinical trials (ID-COSM). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET)-registered international initiative comprised six steps over 24 months: (i) systematic reviews of outcomes reported in the last 10 years; (ii) international patient focus groups; (iii) a Delphi project with a broad range of stakeholders (care providers, clinical researchers, methodologists, patients and industry representatives); (iv) expert group discussions organizing the outcomes in domains using a theoretical framework and identifying the COSs; (v) identification of valid measurement systems to capture the different domains and (vi) final consensus and formal approval involving experts and patients. The methods were modified from the best practice approach following the Outcome Measures in Rheumatoid Arthritis Clinical Trial and COMET manuals. RESULTS: The systematic reviews and patient focus groups identified 754 (665 + 89, respectively) relevant outcome measures. After elimination of redundancies and duplicates, 111 were formally assessed in the Delphi project. By applying pre-specified filters, the Delphi process identified 22 essential outcomes. These were reduced to 13 after aggregating alternative assessments of the same features. The expert committee organized them into four core outcome areas: (i) pathophysiology, (ii) implant/prosthesis lifespan, (iii) life impact and (iv) access to care. In each area, core outcomes were identified to capture both the benefits and harms of therapy. Mandatory outcome domains included assessment of surgical morbidity and complications, peri-implant tissue health status, intervention-related adverse events, complication-free survival and overall patient satisfaction and comfort. Outcomes deemed mandatory in specific circumstances comprised function (mastication, speech, aesthetics and denture retention), quality of life, effort for treatment and maintenance and cost effectiveness. Specialized COSs were identified for bone and soft-tissue augmentation procedures. The validity of measurement instruments ranged from international consensus (peri-implant tissue health status) to early identification of important outcomes (patient-reported outcomes identified by the focus groups). CONCLUSIONS: The ID-COSM initiative reached a consensus on a core set of mandatory outcomes for clinical trials in implant dentistry and/or soft tissue/bone augmentation. Adoption in future protocols and reporting on the respective domain areas by currently ongoing trials will contribute to improving evidence-informed implant dentistry and quality of care.

Multi-stakeholder contribution to the identification of a core outcome set and measurements in implant dentistry (ID-COSM initiative) using the Delphi methodology.

AIM: To obtain input from multiple stakeholders and generate agreement on essential outcomes in implant dentistry using the Delphi methodology and incorporate them into an international consensus defining a core outcome set. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Candidate outcomes in implant dentistry were generated from scientific evidence through five commissioned systematic reviews and from people with lived experience in dental implants (PWLE) through four international focus groups. A steering committee identified stakeholders among representatives from dental professionals, industry-related experts and PWLE. Participants underwent a three-round Delphi survey using a multi-stakeholder approach; they assessed candidate outcomes and additional outcomes identified in the first Delphi round. The process followed the COMET methodology. RESULTS: From the 665 potential outcomes identified in the systematic reviews and 89 in the PWLE focus group, the steering committee selected 100 and organized them into 13 categories, to be included in the first-round questionnaire as candidate outcomes. A total of 99 dental experts, 7 dental-industry-related experts and 17 PWLE participated in the first round, and 11 additional outcomes were added to the second round. There was no attrition between the first and second rounds, where 61 (54.9%) outcomes exceeded the pre-established threshold of agreement. PWLE and experts participated in the third round that applied "a priori" standard filters to distil a list of candidate essential outcomes. CONCLUSION: This Delphi study utilized a standardized, transparent and inclusive methodology and preliminarily validated 13 essential outcomes organized into four core areas. These results informed the final stage of the ID-COSM consensus.

Involving people with lived experience in developing a core outcome set for implant dentistry research. The Implant Dentistry-Core Outcomes Sets and Measures (ID-COSM) project.

AIMS: The aims of this project were to establish the outcomes for dental implant research that are important to people with lived experience (PWLE) and to achieve consensus with those developed by dental professionals (DPs) for a core outcome set (COS). This paper reports the process, outcomes and experiences of involving PWLE in developing a COS for dental implant research: the Implant Dentistry Core Outcome Sets and Measures project. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Overall methods were guided by the Core Outcome Set Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) initiative. Initial outcome identification was achieved from focus groups with PWLE employing calibrated methods across two low-middle-income countries (China and Malaysia) and two high-income countries (Spain and the United Kingdom). Following consolidation of the results, the outcomes were incorporated into a three-stage Delphi process with PWLE participation. Finally, consensus between PWLE and DPs was achieved using a mixed live and recorded platform. The experiences of PWLE involvement in the process was also evaluated. RESULTS: Thirty-one PWLE participated in four focus groups. Thirty-four outcomes were suggested across the focus groups. Evaluation of the focus groups revealed a high level of satisfaction with the engagement process and some new learning. Seventeen PWLE contributed to the first 2 Delphi rounds and 7 to the third round. The final consensus included 17 PWLE (47%) and 19 DPs (53%). Out of the total of 11 final consensus outcomes considered essential by both PWLE and health professionals, 7 (64%) outcomes mapped across to ones that PWLE initially identified, broadening their definition. One outcome (PWLE effort required for treatment and maintenance) was entirely novel. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that engaging PWLE in COS development can be achieved across widely different communities. Furthermore, the process both broadened and enriched overall outcome consensus, yielding important and novel perspectives for health-related research.

Involving people with lived experience in developing a core outcome set for implant dentistry research. The Implant Dentistry-Core Outcomes Sets and Measures (ID-COSM) project.

AIMS: The aims of this project were to establish the outcomes for dental implant research that are important to people with lived experience (PWLE) and to achieve consensus with those developed by dental professionals (DPs) for a core outcome set (COS). This paper reports the process, outcomes and experiences of involving PWLE in developing a COS for dental implant research: the Implant Dentistry Core Outcome Sets and Measures project. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Overall methods were guided by the Core Outcome Set Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) initiative. Initial outcome identification was achieved from focus groups with PWLE employing calibrated methods across two low-middle-income countries (China and Malaysia) and two high-income countries (Spain and the United Kingdom). Following consolidation of the results, the outcomes were incorporated into a three-stage Delphi process with PWLE participation. Finally, consensus between PWLE and DPs was achieved using a mixed live and recorded platform. The experiences of PWLE involvement in the process was also evaluated. RESULTS: Thirty-one PWLE participated in four focus groups. Thirty-four outcomes were suggested across the focus groups. Evaluation of the focus groups revealed a high level of satisfaction with the engagement process and some new learning. Seventeen PWLE contributed to the first 2 Delphi rounds and 7 to the third round. The final consensus included 17 PWLE (47%) and 19 DPs (53%). Out of the total of 11 final consensus outcomes considered essential by both PWLE and health professionals, 7 (64%) outcomes mapped across to ones that PWLE initially identified, broadening their definition. One outcome (PWLE effort required for treatment and maintenance) was entirely novel. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that engaging PWLE in COS development can be achieved across widely different communities. Furthermore, the process both broadened and enriched overall outcome consensus, yielding important and novel perspectives for health-related research.

Multi-stakeholder contribution to the identification of a core outcome set and measurements in implant dentistry (ID-COSM initiative) using the Delphi methodology.

AIM: To obtain input from multiple stakeholders and generate agreement on essential outcomes in implant dentistry using the Delphi methodology and incorporate them into an international consensus defining a core outcome set. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Candidate outcomes in implant dentistry were generated from scientific evidence through five commissioned systematic reviews and from people with lived experience in dental implants (PWLE) through four international focus groups. A steering committee identified stakeholders among representatives from dental professionals, industry-related experts and PWLE. Participants underwent a three-round Delphi survey using a multi-stakeholder approach; they assessed candidate outcomes and additional outcomes identified in the first Delphi round. The process followed the COMET methodology. RESULTS: From the 665 potential outcomes identified in the systematic reviews and 89 in the PWLE focus group, the steering committee selected 100 and organized them into 13 categories, to be included in the first-round questionnaire as candidate outcomes. A total of 99 dental experts, 7 dental-industry-related experts and 17 PWLE participated in the first round, and 11 additional outcomes were added to the second round. There was no attrition between the first and second rounds, where 61 (54.9%) outcomes exceeded the pre-established threshold of agreement. PWLE and experts participated in the third round that applied "a priori" standard filters to distil a list of candidate essential outcomes. CONCLUSION: This Delphi study utilized a standardized, transparent and inclusive methodology and preliminarily validated 13 essential outcomes organized into four core areas. These results informed the final stage of the ID-COSM consensus.

Relevant domains, core outcome sets and measurements for implant dentistry clinical trials: The Implant Dentistry Core Outcome Set and Measurement (ID-COSM) international consensus report.

AIM: Lack of consistently reported outcomes limits progress in evidence-based implant dentistry and quality of care. The objective of this initiative was to develop a core outcome set (COS) and measurements for implant dentistry clinical trials (ID-COSM). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET)-registered international initiative comprised six steps over 24 months: (i) systematic reviews of outcomes reported in the last 10 years; (ii) international patient focus groups; (iii) a Delphi project with a broad range of stakeholders (care providers, clinical researchers, methodologists, patients and industry representatives); (iv) expert group discussions organizing the outcomes in domains using a theoretical framework and identifying the COSs; (v) identification of valid measurement systems to capture the different domains and (vi) final consensus and formal approval involving experts and patients. The methods were modified from the best practice approach following the Outcome Measures in Rheumatoid Arthritis Clinical Trial and COMET manuals. RESULTS: The systematic reviews and patient focus groups identified 754 (665 + 89, respectively) relevant outcome measures. After elimination of redundancies and duplicates, 111 were formally assessed in the Delphi project. By applying pre-specified filters, the Delphi process identified 22 essential outcomes. These were reduced to 13 after aggregating alternative assessments of the same features. The expert committee organized them into four core outcome areas: (i) pathophysiology, (ii) implant/prosthesis lifespan, (iii) life impact and (iv) access to care. In each area, core outcomes were identified to capture both the benefits and harms of therapy. Mandatory outcome domains included assessment of surgical morbidity and complications, peri-implant tissue health status, intervention-related adverse events, complication-free survival and overall patient satisfaction and comfort. Outcomes deemed mandatory in specific circumstances comprised function (mastication, speech, aesthetics and denture retention), quality of life, effort for treatment and maintenance and cost effectiveness. Specialized COSs were identified for bone and soft-tissue augmentation procedures. The validity of measurement instruments ranged from international consensus (peri-implant tissue health status) to early identification of important outcomes (patient-reported outcomes identified by the focus groups). CONCLUSIONS: The ID-COSM initiative reached a consensus on a core set of mandatory outcomes for clinical trials in implant dentistry and/or soft tissue/bone augmentation. Adoption in future protocols and reporting on the respective domain areas by currently ongoing trials will contribute to improving evidence-informed implant dentistry and quality of care.

Outcomes of periodontal therapy: Strengthening the relevance of research to patients. A co-created review.

Periodontitis is a long-term condition affecting up to half of the population globally and causing significant impacts on life quality. Successful management depends on taking life-long ownership of the condition by those affected. There is a wealth of research to inform on management options. However, most of the research has been designed by professional experts with outcomes to gauge benefits and harms based on parameters that inform on the disease process but which might not be informative to support decision-making in people with lived experience (PWLE) of periodontal ill-health (including both patients and carers). The importance of relevant outcomes is highlighted in the concept of the "expert patient" which aims to strengthen the capacity of PWLE to make health-care choices that are important for them, elements of which are likely to be already familiar to many clinicians delivering periodontal health care. Therefore, the voice and collaboration of PWLE in research are recognised as crucial to developing high quality, relevant evidence especially for long-term conditions. In this paper, we review what is known about the relevance of treatment outcomes to PWLE. We also examine the degree to which PWLE have been involved in identifying outcomes that are important to them as well as the diversity and therefore representativeness of PWLE recruited for studies. We consider why having more relevant outcomes could enhance the expertise of PWLE in managing their periodontitis. We then conclude with key learnings from our review which we hope will encourage more rapid development of these initiatives in periodontology for the benefit of global health and wellbeing.

Oral care measures for preventing nursing home-acquired pneumonia.

BACKGROUND: Pneumonia in residents of nursing homes can be termed nursing home-acquired pneumonia (NHAP). NHAP is one of the most common infections identified in nursing home residents and has the highest mortality of any infection in this population. NHAP is associated with poor oral hygiene and may be caused by aspiration of oropharyngeal flora into the lung. Oral care measures to remove or disrupt oral plaque might reduce the risk of NHAP. This is the first update of a review published in 2018. OBJECTIVES: To assess effects of oral care measures for preventing nursing home-acquired pneumonia in residents of nursing homes and other long-term care facilities. SEARCH METHODS: An information specialist searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, one other database and three trials registers up to 12 May 2022. We also used additional search methods to identify published, unpublished and ongoing studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that evaluated the effects of oral care measures (brushing, swabbing, denture cleaning mouthrinse, or combination) in residents of any age in nursing homes and other long-term care facilities. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least two review authors independently assessed search results, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias in the included studies. We contacted study authors for additional information. We pooled data from studies with similar interventions and outcomes. We reported risk ratios (RRs) for dichotomous outcomes, mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes, and hazard ratios (HRs) or incidence rate ratio (IRR) for time-to-event outcomes, using random-effects models. MAIN RESULTS: We included six RCTs (6244 participants), all of which were at high risk of bias. Three studies were carried out in Japan, two in the USA, and one in France. The studies evaluated one comparison: professional oral care versus usual oral care. We did not include the results from one study (834 participants) because it had been stopped at interim analysis.  Consistent results from five studies, with 5018 participants, provided insufficient evidence of a difference between professional oral care and usual (simple, self-administered) oral care in the incidence of pneumonia. Three studies reported HRs, one reported IRRs, and one reported RRs. Due to the variation in study design and follow-up duration, we decided not to pool the data. We downgraded the certainty of the evidence for this outcome by two levels to low: one level for study limitations (high risk of performance bias), and one level for imprecision. There was low-certainty evidence from meta-analysis of two individually randomised studies that professional oral care may reduce the risk of pneumonia-associated mortality compared with usual oral care at 24 months' follow-up (RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.76, 454 participants). Another study (2513 participants) reported insufficient evidence of a difference for this outcome at 18 months' follow-up. Three studies measured all-cause mortality and identified insufficient evidence of a difference between professional and usual oral care at 12 to 30 months' follow-up. Only one study (834 participants) measured the adverse effects of the interventions. The study identified no serious events and 64 non-serious events, the most common of which were oral cavity disturbances (not defined) and dental staining. No studies evaluated oral care versus no oral care. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Although low-certainty evidence suggests that professional oral care may reduce mortality compared to usual care when measured at 24 months, the effect of professional oral care on preventing NHAP remains largely unclear. Low-certainty evidence was inconclusive about the effects of this intervention on incidence and number of first episodes of NHAP. Due to differences in study design, effect measures, follow-up duration, and composition of the interventions, we cannot determine the optimal oral care protocol from current evidence.  Future trials will require larger samples, robust methods that ensure low risk of bias, and more practicable interventions for nursing home residents.

Associations of Blood and Performance Parameters with Signs of Periodontal Inflammation in Young Elite Athletes-An Explorative Study.

This retrospective cross-sectional study aimed to explore interactions between signs of periodontal inflammation and systemic parameters in athletes. Members of German squads with available data on sports medical and oral examination were included. Groups were divided by gingival inflammation (median of papillary bleeding index, PBI ≥ median) and signs of periodontitis (Periodontal Screening Index, PSI ≥ 3). Age, gender, anthropometry, blood parameters, echocardiography, sports performance on ergometer, and maximal aerobic capacity (VO2max) were evaluated. Eighty-five athletes (f = 51%, 20.6 ± 3.5 years) were included (PBI < 0.42: 45%; PSI ≥ 3: 38%). Most associations were not statistically significant. Significant group differences were found for body fat percentage and body mass index. All blood parameters were in reference ranges. Minor differences in hematocrit, hemoglobin, basophils, erythrocyte sedimentation rates, urea, and HDL cholesterol were found for PBI, in uric acid for PSI. Echocardiographic parameters (n = 40) did not show any associations. Athletes with PSI ≥ 3 had lower VO2max values (55.9 ± 6.7 mL/min/kg vs. 59.3 ± 7.0 mL/min/kg; p = 0.03). In exercise tests (n = 30), athletes with PBI < 0.42 achieved higher relative maximal load on the cycling ergometer (5.0 ± 0.5 W/kg vs. 4.4 ± 0.3 W/kg; p = 0.03). Despite the limitations of this study, potential associations between signs of periodontal inflammation and body composition, blood parameters, and performance were identified. Further studies on the systemic impact of oral inflammation in athletes, especially regarding performance, are necessary.

Full-mouth treatment modalities (within 24 hours) for periodontitis in adults.

BACKGROUND: Periodontitis is a highly prevalent, chronic inflammation that causes damage to the soft tissues and bones supporting the teeth. Conventional treatment is quadrant scaling and root planing (the second step of periodontal therapy), which comprises scaling and root planing of teeth in one quadrant of the mouth at a time, with the four different sessions separated by at least one week. Alternative protocols for anti-infective periodontal therapy have been introduced to help enhance treatment outcomes: full-mouth scaling (subgingival instrumentation of all quadrants within 24 hours), or full-mouth disinfection (subgingival instrumentation of all quadrants in 24 hours plus adjunctive antiseptic). We use the older term 'scaling and root planing' (SRP) interchangeably with the newer term 'subgingival instrumentation' in this iteration of the review, which updates one originally published in 2008 and first updated in 2015. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the clinical effects of full-mouth scaling or full-mouth disinfection (within 24 hours) for the treatment of periodontitis compared to conventional quadrant subgingival instrumentation (over a series of visits at least one week apart) and to evaluate whether there was a difference in clinical effects between full-mouth disinfection and full-mouth scaling. SEARCH METHODS: An information specialist searched five databases up to 17 June 2021 and used additional search methods to identify published, unpublished and ongoing studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) lasting at least three months that evaluated full-mouth scaling and root planing within 24 hours, with or without adjunctive use of an antiseptic, compared to conventional quadrant SRP (control). Participants had a clinical diagnosis of (chronic) periodontitis according to the International Classification of Periodontal Diseases from 1999. A new periodontitis classification was launched in 2018; however, we used the 1999 classification for inclusion or exclusion of studies, as most studies used it. We excluded studies of people with systemic disorders, taking antibiotics or with the older diagnosis of 'aggressive periodontitis'. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Several review authors independently conducted data extraction and risk of bias assessment (based on randomisation method, allocation concealment, examiner blinding and completeness of follow-up). Our primary outcomes were tooth loss and change in probing pocket depth (PPD); secondary outcomes were change in probing attachment (i.e. clinical attachment level (CAL)), bleeding on probing (BOP), adverse events and pocket closure (the number/proportion of sites with PPD of 4 mm or less after treatment). We followed Cochrane's methodological guidelines for data extraction and analysis. MAIN RESULTS: We included 20 RCTs, with 944 participants, in this updated review. No studies assessed the primary outcome tooth loss. Thirteen trials compared full-mouth scaling and root planing within 24 hours without the use of antiseptic (FMS) versus control, 13 trials compared full-mouth scaling and root planing within 24 hours with adjunctive use of an antiseptic (FMD) versus control, and six trials compared FMS with FMD. Of the 13 trials comparing FMS versus control, we assessed three at high risk of bias, six at low risk of bias and four at unclear risk of bias. We assessed our certainty about the evidence as low or very low for the outcomes in this comparison. There was no evidence for a benefit for FMS over control for change in PPD, gain in CAL or reduction in BOP at six to eight months (PPD: mean difference (MD) 0.03 mm, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.14 to 0.20; 5 trials, 148 participants; CAL: MD 0.10 mm, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.26; 5 trials, 148 participants; BOP: MD 2.64%, 95% CI -8.81 to 14.09; 3 trials, 80 participants). There was evidence of heterogeneity for BOP (I² = 50%), but none for PPD and CAL. Of the 13 trials comparing FMD versus control, we judged four at high risk of bias, one at low risk of bias and eight at unclear risk of bias. At six to eight months, there was no evidence for a benefit for FMD over control for change in PPD or CAL (PPD: MD 0.11 mm, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.27; 6 trials, 224 participants; low-certainty evidence; CAL: 0.07 mm, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.24; 6 trials, 224 participants; low-certainty evidence). The analyses found no evidence of a benefit for FMD over control for BOP (very low-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of heterogeneity for PPD or CAL, but considerable evidence of heterogeneity for BOP, attributed to one study. There were no consistent differences in these outcomes between intervention and control (low- to very low-certainty evidence). Of the six trials comparing FMS and FMD, we judged two trials at high risk of bias, one at low risk of bias and three as unclear. At six to eight months, there was no evidence of a benefit of FMD over FMS for change in PPD or gain in CAL (PPD: MD -0.11 mm, 95% CI -0.30 to 0.07; P = 0.22; 4 trials, 112 participants; low-certainty evidence; CAL: MD -0.05 mm, 95% CI -0.23 to -0.13; P = 0.58; 4 trials, 112 participants; low-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of a difference between FMS and FMD for BOP at any time point (P = 0.98; 2 trials, 22 participants; low- to very low-certainty evidence). There was evidence of heterogeneity for BOP (I² = 52%), but not for PPD or CAL. Thirteen studies predefined adverse events as an outcome; three reported an event after FMD or FMS. The most important harm identified was an increase in body temperature. We assessed the certainty of the evidence for most comparisons and outcomes as low because of design limitations leading to risk of bias, and the small number of trials and participants, leading to imprecision in the effect estimates. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The inclusion of nine new RCTs in this updated review has not changed the conclusions of the previous version of the review. There is still no clear evidence that FMS or FMD approaches provide additional clinical benefit compared to conventional mechanical treatment for adult periodontitis. In practice, the decision to select one approach to non-surgical periodontal therapy over another should include patient preference and the convenience of the treatment schedule.

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.

Orofacial conditions and oral health behavior of young athletes: A comparison of amateur and competitive sports.

PURPOSE: This retrospective cross-sectional study aimed to evaluate oral health status (dental, periodontal, and functional) and oral health behavior in young German athletes including the comparison of competitive (CA) and amateur sports (AA). METHODS: Data of CA (German national teams, perspective, and youth squads) and AA aged between 18 and 30 years with an available oral examination in 2019 were included. CLINICAL EXAMINATION: caries experience (DMF-T), non-carious wear (erosion, BEWE), partially erupted wisdom teeth, gingival inflammation (PBI), plaque index, periodontal screening (PSI), and temporomandibular dysfunction (TMD) screening. Questionnaires: oral health behavior and periodontal symptoms. RESULTS: 88 CA (w = 51%, 20.6 ± 3.5 years) of endurance sports and 57 AA (w = 51%, 22.2 ± 2.1 years) were included. DMF-T was comparable (CA: 2.7 ± 2.2, AA: 2.3 ± 2.2; p = 0.275) with more D-T in CA (0.6 ± 1.0) than AA (0.3 ± 0.7; p = 0.046; caries prevalence: CA: 34%, AA: 19%; p = 0.06). Both groups had low severity of erosion (BEWE about 3.5). CA had more positive TMD screenings (43% vs. 25%; p = 0.014). In both groups, all athletes showed signs of gingival inflammation, but on average of low severity (PBI <1). More CA needed complex periodontal treatment than AA (maximum PSI = 3 in 40% vs. 12%; p < 0.001). Oral health behavior was comparable (daily tooth brushing; regular dental check-ups in >70%). CONCLUSIONS: Young German athletes (CA and AA) generally showed signs of gingival inflammation and needed to improve their oral health behavior. CA showed slightly increased oral findings (more D-T, periodontal and TMD screening findings) than AA, but similar oral health behavior. This may imply an increased dental care need in competitive sports.

Recurrence and progression of periodontitis and methods of management in long-term care: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIM: To systematically review the literature to evaluate the recurrence of disease of people in long-term supportive periodontal care (SPC), previously treated for periodontitis, and determine the effect of different methods of managing recurrence. The review focused on stage IV periodontitis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An electronic search was conducted (until May 2020) for prospective clinical trials. Tooth loss was the primary outcome. RESULTS: Twenty-four publications were retrieved to address recurrence of disease in long-term SPC. Eight studies were included in the meta-analyses for tooth loss, and three studies for disease progression/recurrence (clinical attachment level [CAL] loss ≥2 mm). For patients in SPC of 5-20 years, prevalence of losing more than one tooth was 9.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] 5%-14%), while experiencing more than one site of CAL loss ≥2 mm was 24.8% (95% CI 11%-38%). Six studies informed on the effect of different methods of managing recurrence, with no clear evidence of superiority between methods. No data was found specifically for stage IV periodontitis. CONCLUSIONS: A small proportion of patients with stage III/IV periodontitis will experience tooth loss in long-term SPC (tendency for greater prevalence with time). Regular SPC appears to be important for reduction of tooth loss. No superior method to manage disease recurrence was found.

Developing the role of the sports dentist.

Sports dentistry has traditionally focused on orofacial trauma. There is now increasing evidence that participation in sport, particularly at elite level, may significantly increase the risks to oral health. The negative impact of poor oral health on athlete-reported wellbeing and performance is clear. The risks to athlete oral health can and should be mitigated and the role of the sports dentist is evolving to meet these new challenges. Custom-made mouthguards provide protection against orofacial trauma and potentially, concussion. Oral health screening should be included in athlete pre-season preparation. As integrated members of the athlete support team, dentists and dental care professionals can provide sport-specific oral health advice, encouraging athletes to take ownership of their oral health. The potential for translational health and wellbeing benefits to the wider population is also substantial, particularly with youth groups and recreational athletes. Sports dentistry requires distinctive skills. A UK-wide network of dentists and other oral health professionals with an interest in sport is important, to ensure that both appropriate advice and treatment is evidence-based and to further develop the research and clinical foundations.

Patient involvement to explore research prioritisation and self-care management in people with periodontitis and diabetes.

Aim To investigate, firstly, research priorities for people with periodontitis and those with periodontitis and diabetes. Secondary aims were to explore disease self-management barriers, difficulties and enhancers for people with periodontitis and/or diabetes, mutual learning in patient groups regarding self-care and views of academic researchers on patient-derived research prioritisation.Materials and methods Research prioritisation and self-care management was based on the James Lind Alliance workshop methodology. Participants generated and ranked research priorities and enhancers and barriers to self-care management. Semi-structured interviews were undertaken to explore the views of academic staff about patient and public involvement (PPI) and the findings from this research.Results Periodontitis patients ranked preventive educational interventions highest, whereas the top priority for those with both periodontitis and diabetes was increasing public awareness about periodontitis and systemic health links. Regarding self-care, both periodontitis and diabetes groups highly ranked the importance of being able to self-assess their condition and efficacy of management. Important barriers for the diabetes patients were psychological issues, while for periodontitis patients, the main barrier was receiving conflicting or lacking information. Both groups reported that shared learning helped to develop a better understanding of their conditions and improved management. Academics believed it was essential to involve patients in developing research and most felt the findings would influence their institutions' research priorities; however, they would not change their own research only based on patients' perspectives.Conclusions The workshops led to new insights for research priorities and approaches for health self-management. PPI should be further investigated across oral health applications.

BSP implementation of European S3 - level evidence-based treatment guidelines for stage I-III periodontitis in UK clinical practice.

OBJECTIVES: To adapt the supranational European Federation for Periodontology (EFP) S3-Level Clinical Practice Guideline for treatment of periodontitis (stage I-III) to a UK healthcare environment, taking into account the views of a broad range of stakeholders, and patients. SOURCES: This UK version is based on the supranational EFP guideline (Sanz et al., 2020) published in the Journal of Clinical Periodontology. The source guideline was developed using the S3-level methodology, which combined the assessment of formal evidence from 15 systematic reviews with a moderated consensus process of a representative group of stakeholders, and accounts for health equality, environmental factors and clinical effectiveness. It encompasses 62 clinical recommendations for the treatment of stage I-III periodontitis, based on a step-wise process mapped to the 2017 classification system. METHODOLOGY: The UK version was developed from the source guideline using a formal process called the GRADE ADOLOPMENT framework. This framework allows for the adoption (unmodified acceptance), adaptation (acceptance with modifications) and the de novo development of clinical recommendations. Using this framework and following the S3-process, the underlying systematic reviews were updated and a representative guideline group of 75 delegates from 17 stakeholder organisations was assembled into three working groups. Following the formal S3-process, all clinical recommendations were formally assessed for their applicability to the UK and adoloped accordingly. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: Using the ADOLOPMENT protocol, a UK version of the EFP S3-level clinical practice guideline was developed. This guideline delivers evidence- and consensus-based clinical recommendations of direct relevance to the dental community in the UK. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The aim of S3-level guidelines is to combine the evaluation of formal evidence, grading and synthesis with the clinical expertise of a broad range of stakeholders to form clinical recommendations. Herein, the first major international S3-level guideline in dentistry, the EFP guideline, was implemented for direct clinical applicability in the UK healthcare system.

Implementation of a behavioural change intervention to enhance oral health behaviours in elite athletes: a feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: Poor oral health of elite athletes is common and is associated with negative performance impacts. There is a need for oral health promotion strategies that are effective within the elite sport environment. AIM: To develop, implement and evaluate a pragmatic oral health promotion intervention that integrated the capability, opportunity, motivation and behaviour model of behavioural change into the knowledge transfer system for effective implementation of preventive interventions. METHODS: Repeated measures study. Athletes and support team together viewed one 10 min presentation and three 90 s information films. Athletes alone received oral health screening, personalised advice and an oral health toolkit. Outcome measures included: (1) oral health knowledge, athlete-reported performance impacts (Oslo Sports Trauma Research Centre, OSTRC score), use of oral hygiene aids, gingival inflammation (bleeding) score, recorded at baseline, 4-6 weeks and 12-16 weeks and (2) athlete feedback. RESULTS: We recruited 62 athletes; 44 (71%) male and 58 (93.5%) white British, 55 (88.7%) athletes completed the study. Mean knowledge score improved from 5.69 (1.59) to 6.93 (1.32) p<0.001. Mean OSTRC score reduced from 8.73 (14.54) to 2.73 (11.31) p<0.001. Athlete use of prescription strength fluoride toothpaste increased from 8 (12.9%) to 45 (80.4%) p<0.001. Athlete-reported use of interdental cleaning aids at least 2-3 x week increased from 10 (16.2%) to 21 (34%) p=0.013. Bleeding score remained unchanged. CONCLUSION: This behavioural change intervention was successfully implemented within different elite sport environments. It was associated with an increase in athlete oral health knowledge, enhanced oral health behaviour, a reduction in self-reported performance impacts and high participant retention.

Endpoints of active periodontal therapy.

AIM: Position paper on endpoints of active periodontal therapy for designing treatment guidelines. The question was as follows: How are, for an individual patient, commonly applied periodontal probing measures-recorded after active periodontal therapy-related to (a) stability of clinical attachment level, (b) tooth survival, (c) need for re-treatment or (d) oral health-related quality of life. METHODS: A literature search was conducted in Ovid MEDLINE(R) and Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations and Daily <1946 to 07 June 2019>. RESULTS: A total of 94 papers were retrieved. From the literature search, it was found that periodontitis patients with a low proportion of deep residual pockets after active periodontal therapy are more likely to have stability of clinical attachment level over a follow-up time of ≥1 year. Other supporting literature confirms this finding and additionally reports, at the patient level, that probing pocket depths ≥6 mm and bleeding on probing scores ≥30% are risks for tooth loss. There is lack of evidence that periodontal probing measures after completion of active periodontal treatment are tangible to the patient. CONCLUSIONS: Based on literature and biological plausibility, it is reasonable to state that periodontitis patients with a low proportion of residual periodontal pockets and little inflammation are more likely to have stability of clinical attachment levels and less tooth loss over time. Guidelines for periodontal therapy should take into consideration (a) long-term tangible patient outcomes, (b) that shallow pockets (≤4 mm) without bleeding on probing in patients with <30% bleeding sites are the best guarantee for the patient for stability of his/her periodontal attachment, (c) patient heterogeneity and patient changes in immune response over time, and (d) that treatment strategies include lifestyle changes of the patient. Long-term large population-based and practice-based studies on the efficacy of periodontal therapies including both clinical and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) need to be initiated, which include the understanding that periodontitis is a complex disease with variation of inflammatory responses due to environment, (epi)genetics, lifestyle and ageing. Involving people living with periodontitis as co-researchers in the design of these studies would also help to improve their relevance.