Effect of periodontal treatments on blood pressure.

BACKGROUND

An association has been hypothesized between periodontitis and hypertension. Periodontal therapy is believed to reduce systemic inflammatory mediators and increase endothelial function, thus having the potential to prevent and treat hypertension.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect and safety of different periodontal treatment modalities on blood pressure (BP) in people with chronic periodontitis.

SEARCH METHODS

The Cochrane Hypertension Information Specialist searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) up to November 2020 in the Cochrane Hypertension Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, seven other databases, and two clinical trials registries. We contacted the authors of relevant papers regarding further published and unpublished work.

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs and quasi-RCTs aiming to detect the effect of periodontal treatment on BP were eligible. Participants should have been diagnosed with chronic periodontitis and hypertension (or no hypertension if the study explored the preventive effect of periodontal treatment). Participants in the intervention group should have undergone subgingival scaling and root planing (SRP) and any other type of periodontal treatments, compared with either no periodontal treatment or alternative periodontal treatment in the control group.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane for study identification, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment. We used a formal pilot-tested data extraction form for data extraction, and the Cochrane risk of bias tool for risk of bias assessment. We planned the meta-analysis, test for heterogeneity, sensitivity analysis, and subgroup analysis. We assessed the certainty of evidence using GRADE. The primary outcome was change in systolic BP (SBP) and diastolic BP (DBP).

MAIN RESULTS

We included eight RCTs. Five had low risk of bias, one had unclear risk of bias, and two had high risk of bias. Four trials compared periodontal treatment with no treatment. We found no evidence of a difference in the short-term change of SBP and DBP for people diagnosed with periodontitis and other cardiovascular diseases except hypertension (very low-certainty evidence). We found no evidence of a difference in long-term changes in SBP (mean difference [MD] -2.25 mmHg, 95% confidence interval [CI] -9.41 to 4.92; P = 0.54; studies = 2, participants = 108; low-certainty evidence) and DBP (MD -2.55 mmHg, 95% CI -6.90 to 1.80; P = 0.25; studies = 2, participants = 103; low-certainty evidence). Concerning people diagnosed with periodontitis, in the short term, two studies of low certainty reported no changes in SBP (MD -0.14 mmHg, 95% CI -4.05 to 3.77; P = 0.94; participants = 294) and DBP (MD -0.15 mmHg, 95% CI -2.47 to 2.17; P = 0.90; participants = 294), and we found no evidence of a difference in SBP and DBP over a long period based on low certainty of evidence. Three studies compared intensive periodontal treatment with supra-gingival scaling. We found no evidence of a difference in changes in SBP and DBP for any length of time in people diagnosed with periodontitis (very low-certainty evidence). In people diagnosed with periodontitis and hypertension, we found one study reporting a significant reduction in the short term in SBP (MD -11.20 mmHg, 95% CI -15.40 to -7.00; P < 0.001; participants = 101; moderate-certainty evidence) and DBP (MD -8.40 mmHg, 95% CI -12.19 to -4.61; P < 0.0001; participants = 101; moderate-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence of a difference of an impact of periodontal treatments on BP in most comparisons assessed in this review, and given the low certainty of evidence and the lack of relevant studies we could not draw conclusions about the effect of periodontal treatment on BP in people with chronic periodontitis. We found only one study suggesting that periodontal treatment may reduce SBP and DBP over a short period in people with hypertension and chronic periodontitis, but the certainty of evidence was moderate.