6 new studies included. 3 previously included studies now excluded. Some changes to Methods (see 'Differences between protocol and review' section).

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.

No abstract

No abstract

Background Treatment of cancer is increasingly more effective but is associated with short and long term side effects. Oral side effects remain a major source of illness despite the use of a variety of agents to prevent them. One of these side effects is oral mucositis (mouth ulcers). Objectives To evaluate the effectiveness of prophylactic agents for oral mucositis in patients with cancer receiving treatment, compared with other potentially active interventions, placebo or no treatment.

This review found some moderate evidence that fluoride varnish applied every six weeks at the time of orthodontic review during treatment is effective, but this finding is based on a single study. Further adequately powered, double-blind, randomised controlled trials are required to determine the best means of preventing DWLs in patients undergoing orthodontic treatment and the most accurate means of assessing compliance with treatment and possible adverse effects. Future studies should follow up participants beyond the end of orthodontic treatment to determine the effect of DWLs on participant satisfaction with treatment.

Oral lichen planus (OLP) is a common chronic inflammatory disease associated with cell-mediated immunological dysfunction. Symptomatic OLP is painful and complete healing is rare. The aim of this review was to assess the evidence for the efficacy and safety of treatments for symptomatic OLP. The Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched in January 2011 to identify all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating any intervention for the treatment of symptomatic OLP. A total of 28 trials were included in this Cochrane review. There was no evidence from three RCTs that topical pimecrolimus is better than placebo in reducing pain from OLP. There was weak evidence from two RCTs that topical aloe vera may be associated with a reduction in pain compared with placebo. There was weak and unreliable evidence from two small trials, at high risk of bias, that topical ciclosporin may reduce pain and clinical signs of OLP. There was no evidence (from five trials each evaluating a different steroid and/or calcineurin inhibitor) that there is a difference between treatment with topical corticosteroids (TCSs) compared with topical calcineurin inhibitors with regard to reducing pain associated with OLP or that any specific steroid therapy is more or less effective at reducing pain. Although TCSs are considered to be the first-line treatment, we did not identify any RCTs that compared TCSs with placebo in patients with symptomatic OLP. From the 28 trials included in this systematic review, the wide range of interventions compared means there is insufficient evidence to support the superior effectiveness of any specific treatment.

BackgroundTreatment of cancer is increasingly effective but associated with short and long term side effects. Oral side effects, including oral mucositis (mouth ulceration), remain a major source of illness despite the use of a variety of agents to treat them. ObjectivesTo assess the effectiveness of interventions for treating oral mucositis or its associated pain in patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy or radiotherapy or both.