Background
Diabetes and periodontitis are chronic non‐communicable diseases independently associated with mortality and have a bidirectional relationship.
Aims
To update the evidence for their ...epidemiological and mechanistic associations and re‐examine the impact of effective periodontal therapy upon metabolic control (glycated haemoglobin, HbA1C).
Epidemiology
There is strong evidence that people with periodontitis have elevated risk for dysglycaemia and insulin resistance. Cohort studies among people with diabetes demonstrate significantly higher HbA1C levels in patients with periodontitis (versus periodontally healthy patients), but there are insufficient data among people with type 1 diabetes. Periodontitis is also associated with an increased risk of incident type 2 diabetes.
Mechanisms
Mechanistic links between periodontitis and diabetes involve elevations in interleukin (IL)‐1‐β, tumour necrosis factor‐α, IL‐6, receptor activator of nuclear factor‐kappa B ligand/osteoprotegerin ratio, oxidative stress and Toll‐like receptor (TLR) 2/4 expression.
Interventions
Periodontal therapy is safe and effective in people with diabetes, and it is associated with reductions in HbA1C of 0.27–0.48% after 3 months, although studies involving longer‐term follow‐up are inconclusive.
Conclusions
The European Federation of Periodontology (EFP) and the International Diabetes Federation (IDF) report consensus guidelines for physicians, oral healthcare professionals and patients to improve early diagnosis, prevention and comanagement of diabetes and periodontitis.
Background
In Europe cardiovascular disease (CVD) is responsible for 3.9 million deaths (45% of deaths), being ischaemic heart disease, stroke, hypertension (leading to heart failure) the major cause ...of these CVD related deaths. Periodontitis is also a chronic non‐communicable disease (NCD) with a high prevalence, being severe periodontitis, affecting 11.2% of the world's population, the sixth most common human disease.
Material and Methods
There is now a significant body of evidence to support independent associations between severe periodontitis and several NCDs, in particular CVD. In 2012 a joint workshop was held between the European Federation of Periodontology (EFP) and the American Academy of Periodontology to review the literature relating periodontitis and systemic diseases, including CVD. In the last five years important new scientific information has emerged providing important emerging evidence to support these associations
Results and Conclusions
The present review reports the proceedings of the workshop jointly organised by the EFP and the World Heart Federation (WHF), which has updated the existing epidemiological evidence for significant associations between periodontitis and CVD, the mechanistic links and the impact of periodontal therapy on cardiovascular and surrogate outcomes. This review has also focused on the potential risk and complications of periodontal therapy in patients on anti thrombotic therapy and has made recommendations for dentists, physicians and for patients visiting both the dental and medical practices.
Aims
Over the past decades, the placement of dental implants has become a routine procedure in the oral rehabilitation of fully and partially edentulous patients. However, the number of ...patients/implants affected by peri‐implant diseases is increasing. As there are – in contrast to periodontitis – at present no established and predictable concepts for the treatment of peri‐implantitis, primary prevention is of key importance. The management of peri‐implant mucositis is considered as a preventive measure for the onset of peri‐implantitis. Therefore, the remit of this working group was to assess the prevalence of peri‐implant diseases, as well as risks for peri‐implant mucositis and to evaluate measures for the management of peri‐implant mucositis.
Methods
Discussions were informed by four systematic reviews on the current epidemiology of peri‐implant diseases, on potential risks contributing to the development of peri‐implant mucositis, and on the effect of patient and of professionally administered measures to manage peri‐implant mucositis. This consensus report is based on the outcomes of these systematic reviews and on the expert opinion of the participants.
Results
Key findings included: (i) meta‐analysis estimated a weighted mean prevalence for peri‐implant mucositis of 43% (CI: 32–54%) and for peri‐implantitis of 22% (CI: 14–30%); (ii) bleeding on probing is considered as key clinical measure to distinguish between peri‐implant health and disease; (iii) lack of regular supportive therapy in patients with peri‐implant mucositis was associated with increased risk for onset of peri‐implantitis; (iv) whereas plaque accumulation has been established as aetiological factor, smoking was identified as modifiable patient‐related and excess cement as local risk indicator for the development of peri‐implant mucositis; (v) patient‐administered mechanical plaque control (with manual or powered toothbrushes) has been shown to be an effective preventive measure; (vi) professional intervention comprising oral hygiene instructions and mechanical debridement revealed a reduction in clinical signs of inflammation; (vii) adjunctive measures (antiseptics, local and systemic antibiotics, air‐abrasive devices) were not found to improve the efficacy of professionally administered plaque removal in reducing clinical signs of inflammation.
Conclusions
Consensus was reached on recommendations for patients with dental implants and oral health care professionals with regard to the efficacy of measures to manage peri‐implant mucositis. It was particularly emphasized that implant placement and prosthetic reconstructions need to allow proper personal cleaning, diagnosis by probing and professional plaque removal.
A classification scheme for periodontal and peri‐implant diseases and conditions is necessary for clinicians to properly diagnose and treat patients as well as for scientists to investigate etiology, ...pathogenesis, natural history, and treatment of the diseases and conditions. This paper summarizes the proceedings of the World Workshop on the Classification of Periodontal and Peri‐implant Diseases and Conditions. The workshop was co‐sponsored by the American Academy of Periodontology (AAP) and the European Federation of Periodontology (EFP) and included expert participants from all over the world. Planning for the conference, which was held in Chicago on November 9 to 11, 2017, began in early 2015.
An organizing committee from the AAP and EFP commissioned 19 review papers and four consensus reports covering relevant areas in periodontology and implant dentistry. The authors were charged with updating the 1999 classification of periodontal diseases and conditions and developing a similar scheme for peri‐implant diseases and conditions. Reviewers and workgroups were also asked to establish pertinent case definitions and to provide diagnostic criteria to aid clinicians in the use of the new classification. All findings and recommendations of the workshop were agreed to by consensus.
This introductory paper presents an overview for the new classification of periodontal and peri‐implant diseases and conditions, along with a condensed scheme for each of four workgroup sections, but readers are directed to the pertinent consensus reports and review papers for a thorough discussion of the rationale, criteria, and interpretation of the proposed classification. Changes to the 1999 classification are highlighted and discussed. Although the intent of the workshop was to base classification on the strongest available scientific evidence, lower level evidence and expert opinion were inevitably used whenever sufficient research data were unavailable.
The scope of this workshop was to align and update the classification scheme to the current understanding of periodontal and peri‐implant diseases and conditions. This introductory overview presents the schematic tables for the new classification of periodontal and peri‐implant diseases and conditions and briefly highlights changes made to the 1999 classification. It cannot present the wealth of information included in the reviews, case definition papers, and consensus reports that has guided the development of the new classification, and reference to the consensus and case definition papers is necessary to provide a thorough understanding of its use for either case management or scientific investigation. Therefore, it is strongly recommended that the reader use this overview as an introduction to these subjects. Accessing this publication online will allow the reader to use the links in this overview and the tables to view the source papers (Table 1).
A classification scheme for periodontal and peri‐implant diseases and conditions is necessary for clinicians to properly diagnose and treat patients as well as for scientists to investigate etiology, ...pathogenesis, natural history, and treatment of the diseases and conditions. This paper summarizes the proceedings of the World Workshop on the Classification of Periodontal and Peri‐implant Diseases and Conditions. The workshop was co‐sponsored by the American Academy of Periodontology (AAP) and the European Federation of Periodontology (EFP) and included expert participants from all over the world. Planning for the conference, which was held in Chicago on November 9 to 11, 2017, began in early 2015.
An organizing committee from the AAP and EFP commissioned 19 review papers and four consensus reports covering relevant areas in periodontology and implant dentistry. The authors were charged with updating the 1999 classification of periodontal diseases and conditions and developing a similar scheme for peri‐implant diseases and conditions. Reviewers and workgroups were also asked to establish pertinent case definitions and to provide diagnostic criteria to aid clinicians in the use of the new classification. All findings and recommendations of the workshop were agreed to by consensus.
This introductory paper presents an overview for the new classification of periodontal and peri‐implant diseases and conditions, along with a condensed scheme for each of four workgroup sections, but readers are directed to the pertinent consensus reports and review papers for a thorough discussion of the rationale, criteria, and interpretation of the proposed classification. Changes to the 1999 classification are highlighted and discussed. Although the intent of the workshop was to base classification on the strongest available scientific evidence, lower level evidence and expert opinion were inevitably used whenever sufficient research data were unavailable.
The scope of this workshop was to align and update the classification scheme to the current understanding of periodontal and peri‐implant diseases and conditions. This introductory overview presents the schematic tables for the new classification of periodontal and peri‐implant diseases and conditions and briefly highlights changes made to the 1999 classification. It cannot present the wealth of information included in the reviews, case definition papers, and consensus reports that has guided the development of the new classification, and reference to the consensus and case definition papers is necessary to provide a thorough understanding of its use for either case management or scientific investigation. Therefore, it is strongly recommended that the reader use this overview as an introduction to these subjects. Accessing this publication online will allow the reader to use the links in this overview and the tables to view the source papers (Table ).
Aims
To investigate the clinical performance of regenerative periodontal surgery in the treatment of furcation defects versus open flap debridement (OFD) and to compare different regenerative ...modalities.
Material and Methods
A systematic search was conducted to identify RCTs evaluating regenerative surgical treatment of furcations with a minimum of 12‐month follow‐up. Three authors independently reviewed, selected and extracted data from the search conducted and assessed risk of bias. Primary outcomes were tooth loss, furcation improvement (closure/conversion) (FImp), gain of horizontal bone level (HBL) and attachment level (HCAL). Secondary outcomes were gain in vertical attachment level (VCAL), probing pocket depth (PPD) reduction, PROMs and adverse events. Data were summarized into Bayesian standard and network meta‐analysis in order to estimate direct and indirect treatment effects and to establish a ranking of treatments.
Results
The search identified 19 articles, reporting on 20 RCTs (19 on class II, 1 on class III furcations) with a total of 575 patients/787 defects. Tooth loss was not reported. Furcation closure ranged between 0% and 60% (10 trials), and class I conversion from 29% to 100% (six trials). Regenerative techniques were superior to OFD for FImp (OR = 20.9; 90% CrI = 5.81, 69.41), HCAL gain (1.6 mm), VCAL gain (1.3 mm) and PPD reduction (1.3 mm). Bone replacement grafts (BRG) resulted in the highest probability (Pr = 61%) of being the best treatment for HBL gain. Non‐resorbable membranes + BRG ranked as the best treatment for VCAL gain (Pr = 75%) and PPD reduction (Pr = 56%).
Conclusions
Regenerative surgery of class II furcations is superior to OFD. FImp (furcation closure or class I conversion) can be expected for the majority of defects. Treatment modalities involving BRG are associated with higher performance.
Diabetes and periodontitis are chronic non-communicable diseases independently associated with mortality and have a bidirectional relationship.
To update the evidence for their epidemiological and ...mechanistic associations and re-examine the impact of effective periodontal therapy upon metabolic control (glycated haemoglobin, HbA1C).
There is strong evidence that people with periodontitis have elevated risk for dysglycaemia and insulin resistance. Cohort studies among people with diabetes demonstrate significantly higher HbA1C levels in patients with periodontitis (versus periodontally healthy patients), but there are insufficient data among people with type 1 diabetes. Periodontitis is also associated with an increased risk of incident type 2 diabetes.
Mechanistic links between periodontitis and diabetes involve elevations in interleukin (IL)-1-β, tumour necrosis factor-α, IL-6, receptor activator of nuclear factor-kappa B ligand/osteoprotegerin ratio, oxidative stress and Toll-like receptor (TLR) 2/4 expression.
Periodontal therapy is safe and effective in people with diabetes, and it is associated with reductions in HbA1C of 0.27–0.48% after 3 months, although studies involving longer-term follow-up are inconclusive.
The European Federation of Periodontology (EFP) and the International Diabetes Federation (IDF) report consensus guidelines for physicians, oral healthcare professionals and patients to improve early diagnosis, prevention and comanagement of diabetes and periodontitis.
Background
A variety of systemic diseases and conditions can affect the course of periodontitis or have a negative impact on the periodontal attachment apparatus. Gingival recessions are highly ...prevalent and often associated with hypersensitivity, the development of caries and non‐carious cervical lesions on the exposed root surface and impaired esthetics. Occlusal forces can result in injury of teeth and periodontal attachment apparatus. Several developmental or acquired conditions associated with teeth or prostheses may predispose to diseases of the periodontium. The aim of this working group was to review and update the 1999 classification with regard to these diseases and conditions, and to develop case definitions and diagnostic considerations.
Methods
Discussions were informed by four reviews on 1) periodontal manifestions of systemic diseases and conditions; 2) mucogingival conditions around natural teeth; 3) traumatic occlusal forces and occlusal trauma; and 4) dental prostheses and tooth related factors. This consensus report is based on the results of these reviews and on expert opinion of the participants.
Results
Key findings included the following: 1) there are mainly rare systemic conditions (such as Papillon‐Lefevre Syndrome, leucocyte adhesion deficiency, and others) with a major effect on the course of periodontitis and more common conditions (such as diabetes mellitus) with variable effects, as well as conditions affecting the periodontal apparatus independently of dental plaque biofilm‐induced inflammation (such as neoplastic diseases); 2) diabetes‐associated periodontitis should not be regarded as a distinct diagnosis, but diabetes should be recognized as an important modifying factor and included in a clinical diagnosis of periodontitis as a descriptor; 3) likewise, tobacco smoking – now considered a dependence to nicotine and a chronic relapsing medical disorder with major adverse effects on the periodontal supporting tissues – is an important modifier to be included in a clinical diagnosis of periodontitis as a descriptor; 4) the importance of the gingival phenotype, encompassing gingival thickness and width in the context of mucogingival conditions, is recognized and a novel classification for gingival recessions is introduced; 5) there is no evidence that traumatic occlusal forces lead to periodontal attachment loss, non‐carious cervical lesions, or gingival recessions; 6) traumatic occlusal forces lead to adaptive mobility in teeth with normal support, whereas they lead to progressive mobility in teeth with reduced support, usually requiring splinting; 7) the term biologic width is replaced by supracrestal tissue attachment consisting of junctional epithelium and supracrestal connective tissue; 8) infringement of restorative margins within the supracrestal connective tissue attachment is associated with inflammation and/or loss of periodontal supporting tissue. However, it is not evident whether the negative effects on the periodontium are caused by dental plaque biofilm, trauma, toxicity of dental materials or a combination of these factors; 9) tooth anatomical factors are related to dental plaque biofilm‐induced gingival inflammation and loss of periodontal supporting tissues.
Conclusion
An updated classification of the periodontal manifestations and conditions affecting the course of periodontitis and the periodontal attachment apparatus, as well as of developmental and acquired conditions, is introduced. Case definitions and diagnostic considerations are also presented.
This review gives an update of the current scientific evidence on the efficacy of the adjunctive use of systemic and local antibiotics/antimicrobials in the treatment of periodontitis. In particular, ...it addresses whether their use can improve the results of nonsurgical mechanical therapy in mild‐to‐moderate forms of the disease. Large numbers of randomized clinical trials and systematic reviews with meta‐analyses have clearly established that adjunctive systemic antibiotics, combined with mechanical debridement, offer clinical improvements additional to those obtained with scaling and root planing alone. These effects are more pronounced in aggressive periodontitis and in initially deep pockets, whereas more limited additional improvements, of 0.3 mm for additional pocket reduction and 0.2 mm for additional clinical attachment gain, have been documented for moderately deep sites (4–6 mm) in patients with chronic periodontitis. The marginal clinical benefit in patients with moderate disease has to be balanced against possible side effects. Notably, it has to be realized that an increasing number of warnings have been articulated against the unrestricted use of antibiotics in treating periodontal diseases because of the emerging global public health issue of bacterial resistance. The effects of the adjunctive local administration of antimicrobials have also been very well documented in several systematic reviews. Overall, in persistent or recurrent localized deep sites, the application of antimicrobials by sustained‐delivery devices may offer a benefit of an additional 0.4 mm in pocket depth reduction and 0.3 mm in clinical attachment level gain. In conclusion, the slight additional benefits of adjunctive antimicrobials, which were shown for moderate forms of periodontitis, have to be balanced against their side effects and therefore their prescription should be limited as much as possible.
Background
The non‐communicable diseases dental caries and periodontal diseases pose an enormous burden on mankind. The dental biofilm is a major biological determinant common to the development of ...both diseases, and they share common risk factors and social determinants, important for their prevention and control. The remit of this working group was to review the current state of knowledge on epidemiology, socio‐behavioural aspects as well as plaque control with regard to dental caries and periodontal diseases.
Methods
Discussions were informed by three systematic reviews on (i) the global burden of dental caries and periodontitis; (ii) socio‐behavioural aspects in the prevention and control of dental caries and periodontal diseases at an individual and population level; and (iii) mechanical and chemical plaque control in the simultaneous management of gingivitis and dental caries. This consensus report is based on the outcomes of these systematic reviews and on expert opinion of the participants.
Results
Key findings included the following: (i) prevalence and experience of dental caries has decreased in many regions in all age groups over the last three decades; however, not all societal groups have benefitted equally from this decline; (ii) although some studies have indicated a possible decline in periodontitis prevalence, there is insufficient evidence to conclude that prevalence has changed over recent decades; (iii) because of global population growth and increased tooth retention, the number of people affected by dental caries and periodontitis has grown substantially, increasing the total burden of these diseases globally (by 37% for untreated caries and by 67% for severe periodontitis) as estimated between 1990 and 2013, with high global economic impact; (iv) there is robust evidence for an association of low socio‐economic status with a higher risk of having dental caries/caries experience and also with higher prevalence of periodontitis; (v) the most important behavioural factor, affecting both dental caries and periodontal diseases, is routinely performed oral hygiene with fluoride; (vi) population‐based interventions address behavioural factors to control dental caries and periodontitis through legislation (antismoking, reduced sugar content in foods and drinks), restrictions (taxes on sugar and tobacco) guidelines and campaigns; however, their efficacy remains to be evaluated; (vii) psychological approaches aimed at changing behaviour may improve the effectiveness of oral health education; (viii) different preventive strategies have proven to be effective during the course of life; (ix) management of both dental caries and gingivitis relies heavily on efficient self‐performed oral hygiene, that is toothbrushing with a fluoride‐containing toothpaste and interdental cleaning; (x) professional tooth cleaning, oral hygiene instruction and motivation, dietary advice and fluoride application are effective in managing dental caries and gingivitis.
Conclusion
The prevention and control of dental caries and periodontal diseases and the prevention of ultimate tooth loss is a lifelong commitment employing population‐ and individual‐based interventions.
PDF
