Objective
There are 500 million patients living with diabetes mellitus worldwide and 50% of them remain undiagnosed. Routine periodontal probing provides gingival crevicular blood in patients with gingivitis. Gingival blood may be useful for diabetes screening without the need for any expensive, painful or time-consuming method by using convenient glucometers. Therefore, the objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to answer the question to “is there a difference in glucose or HbA1c levels (O) in patients with positive gingival bleeding (P) measured on gingival crevicular blood (GCB) (I) compared to finger prick capillary blood (CB) (C).
Materials and methods
The authors performed an electronic search of six databases using identical MeSH phrases. Only human clinical studies without limitations on the year of publication were considered. Data extraction was done by using standardized data collection sheets. Risk of bias assessment were conducted using QUADAS-2 and QUADAS-C. Meta-analyses were carried out with the random effects model to aggregate the correlation coefficients and the difference between the means between gingival and capillary blood reading, using 95% confidence intervals.
Results
The database and manual search yielded 268 articles, from which the selection procedure provided 36 articles for full-text screening, and the final pool of eligible articles composed of 23 studies with 1680 patients. Meta-analysis results on glycemic levels showed differences between the GCB and CB procedures in patients with and without diabetes with values of -6.80 [-17.35; 3.76] and − 4.36 [-9.89; 1.18], respectively. Statistically significant correlations were found (p = 0.001) between GCB and CB measurements in patients with (0.97 [0.927; 0.987]) and without diabetes (0.927 [0.873; 0.958]).
Conclusion
Gingival blood could prove to be useful to identify patients with undiagnosed diabetes when the necessary amount of uncontaminated blood is present. However, this technique is limited by the possibility of contamination, prandial status and inaccuracies, so it is unsuited to address the patient’s glycemic control accurately.
