Strong evidence suggests that periodontitis is a risk factor for implant loss; moderate evidence revealed that periodontitis is a risk factor for peri-implantitis and that patients with periodontitis have higher implant-bone loss.

The meta-analysis results seem to support the effectiveness of SRP in the improvement of glycemic control in patients with CP and DM2; however, future studies are needed to confirm these results.

The use of adjunctive aPDT to conventional SRP provides short-term benefits. The evidence to support its clinical medium/long-term efficacy is insufficient. Further high-quality RCTs are needed to investigate the influence of potential confounders on the efficacy of adjunctive aPDT.

This systematic review and meta-analysis assessed the efficacy of lasers in reducing dentin hypersensitivity (DH) as compared with placebo or no treatment. Seven electronic databases and a manual search resulted in 2,538 unique publications. After selection, 13 studies were included in the meta-analysis. A CONSORT-based quality assessment revealed that 3 and 10 studies were at low and high risk of bias, respectively. A random-effects model with the generic inverse variance standardized mean difference (SMD) was used because of expected heterogeneity. Meta-analyses of the baseline-end of follow-up changes in pain revealed no differences for Er,Cr:YSSG vs. placebo (SMD = 2.49; 95% CI, -0.25 to 5.22; p = .07) but did reveal differences in favor of lasers for Er:YAG vs. placebo (SMD, 2.65; 95% CI, 1.25 to 4.05; p = .0002), Nd:YAG vs. placebo (SMD, 3.59; 95% CI, 0.49 to 6.69; p = .02), and GaAlAs vs. placebo (SMD, 3.40; 95% CI, 1.93 to 4.87; p < .00001). High and significant heterogeneity was found for all comparisons. In conclusion, Er:YAG, Nd:YAG, and GaAlAs lasers appear to be efficacious in reducing DH. However, given the high heterogeneity of the included studies, future randomized controlled clinical trials are needed to confirm these results.

There is little evidence that smoking is a risk factor for peri-implantitis. However, given the low number of included studies, future studies are needed to confirm these results.

To investigate whether the adjunctive use of diode laser provides additional benefits to scaling root planning alone in patients with chronic periodontitis, a meta-analysis was conducted according to the recommendations of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis statement and the Cochrane Collaboration. A literature search was performed on seven databases, followed by a manual search. Weighted mean differences and 95 % confidence intervals were calculated for the clinical attachment level, probing depth, and changes in the plaque and gingival indices. The I (2) test was used for interstudy heterogeneity. Visual asymmetry inspection of the funnel plot, Egger's regression test, and the trim-and-fill method were used to investigate publication bias. All outcomes were evaluated at 6 months. No significant differences were observed for any investigated outcome of interest. No evidence of heterogeneity or publication bias was detected. These findings suggested that the use of diode laser as an adjunctive therapy to conventional nonsurgical periodontal therapy did not provide additional clinical benefit. However, given that few studies were included in the analysis, and that three of the five included studies had a high risk of bias, the results should be interpreted with caution. Important issues that remain to be clarified include the influence of smoking on clinical outcomes, the effectiveness of adjunctive diode laser on microbiological outcomes, and the occurrence of adverse events. Future long-term well-designed parallel randomized clinical trials are required to assess the effectiveness of the adjunctive use of diode laser, as well as the appropriate dosimetry and laser settings.

BackgroundStudies have suggested controversial results regarding a possible association between pre-eclampsia (PE) and periodontal disease (PD) and no meta-analysis has been performed to clarify this issue.MethodsA literature search of electronic databases was performed for articles published through March 24, 2013, followed by a manual search of several dental and medical journals. The meta-analysis was conducted according to the recommendations of the Cochrane Collaboration and PRISMA. Odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Heterogeneity was assessed with the χ2-based Cochran Q test and I2 statistic. The level of significance was set at P <0.05.ResultsFifteen studies were included, including three cohort and 12 case-control studies. A positive association was found between PE and PD (OR 2.17, 95% CI 1.38–3.41, P = 0.0008). However, a high and significant heterogeneity was found (χ2 = 62.42, P<0.00001, I2 = 75%). In most cases, subgroup analysis had low power to detect significant differences between PE and non-PE groups.ConclusionBased on the findings of the meta-analysis, PD appears to be a possible risk factor for PE. However, given the important differences in the definitions and diagnoses of PD and PE among the studies, as well as their lack of good methodological quality, future trials are needed to confirm the results of the present meta-analysis.

The meta-analysis results seem to support the effectiveness of adjunctive MET with SRP compared to SRP alone. However, given the low number of included studies and limitations of meta-analysis, future studies are needed to confirm these results.