| Title |
Locally applied statins as adjuvants to non-surgical periodontal treatment for chronic periodontitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Oral Investigations, June 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00784-018-2507-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Jonathan Meza-Mauricio, David Soto-Peñaloza, David Peñarrocha-Oltra, Jose Maria Montiel-Company, Daiane Cristina Peruzzo |
| Abstract |
This review aimed at evaluating the effects of chronic periodontitis (CP) treatment with local statins as adjuncts to scaling and root planing (SRP), compared with SRP alone or with placebo. Electronic and hand searches were conducted in three databases to select randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing SRP + statins versus SRP alone. Random effects models were conducted to determine the clinical attachment level (CAL) gain as the primary outcome variable, and probing pocket depth (PPD) reduction, modified sulcus bleeding index (mSBI), and intrabony defect depth (IBD) as the secondary outcomes. Of the 526 papers identified, 15 articles met the criteria for inclusion in this systematic review, and 13 in the meta-analysis. The meta-analysis showed a statistically significant CAL gain (mean differences [MD] = 1.84 mm, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.45 to 2.23; p = 0.000), PPD reduction (MD = 1.69 mm, 95% CI = 1.37 to 2.04; p = 0.000), mSBI change (MD = 0.70, 95% CI = 0.57 to 0.84; p = 0.000), and IBD (MD = 1.48, 95% CI = 1.30 to 1.67; p = 0.000) attributed to SRP + statin treatment (6 months). Within the limitations of this study, the collective evidence emerging from this systematic review and meta-analysis may support the use of locally applied statins as adjuncts to SRP in CP treatment, based on being an easy, low-cost alternative, with lesser adverse effects on bacterial resistance. These results should be interpreted with caution. Clinicians might consider the use of SRP + statins as an adjunct over other alternative approaches, based on the results of the present review. The informed decision should be taken, considering the patient's values and preferences, and the intervention to be implemented by the clinician. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 58 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 58 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 17% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 14% |
| Researcher | 5 | 9% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 4 | 7% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 9 | 16% |
| Unknown | 19 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 26 | 45% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 3% |
| Psychology | 2 | 3% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 2% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 5 | 9% |
| Unknown | 21 | 36% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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 01 February 2019.
All research outputs
#4,084,335
of 23,094,276 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Oral Investigations
#149
of 1,435 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#79,459
of 328,357 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Oral Investigations
#4
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,094,276 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,435 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 328,357 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.