↓ Skip to main content

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews

Treating periodontal disease for preventing adverse birth outcomes in pregnant women

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (90th percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
87 tweeters
facebook
4 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
71 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
419 Mendeley
Title
Treating periodontal disease for preventing adverse birth outcomes in pregnant women
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, June 2017
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd005297.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Zipporah Iheozor-Ejiofor, Philippa Middleton, Marco Esposito, Anne-Marie Glenny

Abstract

Periodontal disease has been linked with a number of conditions, such as cardiovascular disease, stroke, diabetes and adverse pregnancy outcomes, all likely through systemic inflammatory pathways. It is common in women of reproductive age and gum conditions tend to worsen during pregnancy. Some evidence from observational studies suggests that periodontal intervention may reduce adverse pregnancy outcomes. There is need for a comprehensive Cochrane review of randomised trials to assess the effect of periodontal treatment on perinatal and maternal health. To assess the effects of treating periodontal disease in pregnant women in order to prevent or reduce perinatal and maternal morbidity and mortality. Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 6 October 2016), Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth's Trials Register (to 7 October 2016), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 9) in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 6 October 2016), Embase Ovid (1980 to 6 October 2016), and LILACS BIREME Virtual Health Library (Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Information database; 1982 to 6 October 2016). ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials on 6 October 2016. We placed no restrictions on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases. We included all randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the effects of periodontal treatment in preventing or reducing perinatal and maternal morbidity and mortality. We excluded studies where obstetric outcomes were not reported. Two review authors independently screened titles and abstracts and extracted data using a prepiloted data extraction form. Missing data were obtained by contacting authors and risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane's 'Risk of bias' tool. Where appropriate, results of comparable trials were pooled and expressed as risk ratios (RR) or mean differences (MD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) . The random-effects model was used for pooling except where there was an insufficient number of studies. We assessed the quality of the evidence using GRADE. There were 15 RCTs (n = 7161 participants) meeting our inclusion criteria. All the included studies were at high risk of bias mostly due to lack of blinding and imbalance in baseline characteristics of participants. The studies recruited pregnant women from prenatal care facilities who had periodontitis (14 studies) or gingivitis (1 study).The two main comparisons were: periodontal treatment versus no treatment during pregnancy and periodontal treatment versus alternative periodontal treatment. The head-to-head comparison between periodontal treatments assessed a more intensive treatment versus a less intensive one.Eleven studies compared periodontal treatment with no treatment during pregnancy. The meta-analysis shows no clear difference in preterm birth < 37 weeks (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.10; 5671 participants; 11 studies; low-quality evidence) between periodontal treatment and no treatment. There is low-quality evidence that periodontal treatment may reduce low birth weight < 2500 g (9.70% with periodontal treatment versus 12.60% without treatment; RR 0.67, 95% CI 0.48 to 0.95; 3470 participants; 7 studies).It is unclear whether periodontal treatment leads to a difference in preterm birth < 35 weeks (RR 1.19, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.76; 2557 participants; 2 studies; ) and < 32 weeks (RR 1.35, 95% CI 0.78 to 2.32; 2755 participants; 3 studies), low birth weight < 1500 g (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.38 to 1.70; 2550 participants; 2 studies), perinatal mortality (including fetal and neonatal deaths up to the first 28 days after birth) (RR 0.85, 95% CI 0.51 to 1.43; 5320 participants; 7 studies; very low-quality evidence), and pre-eclampsia (RR 1.10, 95% CI 0.74 to 1.62; 2946 participants; 3 studies; very low-quality evidence). There is no evidence of a difference in small for gestational age (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.81 to 1.16; 3610 participants; 3 studies; low-quality evidence) when periodontal treatment is compared with no treatment.Four studies compared periodontal treatment with alternative periodontal treatment. Data pooling was not possible due to clinical heterogeneity. The outcomes reported were preterm birth < 37 weeks, preterm birth < 35 weeks, birth weight < 2500 g, birth weight < 1500 g and perinatal mortality (very low-quality evidence). It is unclear whether there is a difference in < 37 weeks, preterm birth < 35 weeks, birth weight < 2500 g, birth weight < 1500 g and perinatal mortality when different periodontal treatments are compared because the quality of evidence is very low.Maternal mortality and adverse effects of the intervention did not occur in any of the studies that reported on either of the outcomes. It is not clear if periodontal treatment during pregnancy has an impact on preterm birth (low-quality evidence). There is low-quality evidence that periodontal treatment may reduce low birth weight (< 2500 g), however, our confidence in the effect estimate is limited. There is insufficient evidence to determine which periodontal treatment is better in preventing adverse obstetric outcomes. Future research should aim to report periodontal outcomes alongside obstetric outcomes.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 87 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 419 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Unknown 417 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 71 17%
Student > Bachelor 50 12%
Researcher 41 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 33 8%
Student > Postgraduate 27 6%
Other 79 19%
Unknown 118 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 176 42%
Nursing and Health Professions 48 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 3%
Psychology 10 2%
Social Sciences 10 2%
Other 40 10%
Unknown 124 30%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 80. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 June 2021.
All research outputs
#349,225
of 18,891,791 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#707
of 11,887 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,540
of 281,514 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#25
of 241 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 18,891,791 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,887 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 26.7. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 281,514 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 241 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.