In a recent commentary in the Journal of Periodontology, Merchant and Josey (2016) had suggested directed acyclic graphs to better comprehend the partly conflicting results from randomized controlled trials (RCT) on diabetic control after periodontal treatment in diabetic patients. In particular the influence of obesity caught their attention.
As a matter of fact, a remarkable number of systematic reviews (whose varying quality have recently been reviewed in at least two further SRs of SRs) have shown that numerous small-scale, single-center, often poorly designed RCTs had shown that the marker for diabetic control, HbA1c, might be reduced by, say 0.4% 3 months after in essence non-surgical periodontal therapy. The only large-scale, multi-center trial (DPTT) by Engebretson et al. (2013) couldn’t confirm that, though, which sparked harsh criticism of a large number of our thought leaders. A professor in the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics at the University of South Carolina, Columbia, Dr. Anwar Merchant himself had written a letter to the editors of JAMA pointing first to the fact that most participants in the paper by Engebretson et al. were utterly obese. He had further noticed that, “[i]n RCTs conducted among mostly nonobese individuals, periodontal treatment has been shown to reduce systemic inflammation2,4 and improve glycemic control among those with type 2 diabetes.2 However, periodontal treatment has not been shown to affect glycemic control in RCTs conducted among predominantly obese individuals with type 2 diabetes.1,3”
Obesity is positively correlated with inflammatory markers in the blood and strongly related to insulin resistance and metabolic dysregulation mediated by chronic systemic inflammation.5 These findings, taken together with results from RCTs evaluating the effects of periodontal treatment, suggest that the lack of effect of periodontal treatment on glycemic control observed in the study by Engebretson et al may be attributed to the high level of obesity in the study population. Therefore, the findings may be generalizable only to predominantly obese populations with type 2 diabetes.
Maybe Friday’s ban of triclosan in antibacterial soaps by the US American Food and Drug Administration (FDA) will finally drown triclosan in toothpaste as well.
The FDA ruled that companies have one year time to take triclosan, triclocarban and 17 other chemicals in consumer hand and body washes from the market. This does not affect soaps and washes used in hospitals and food service settings.
The agency issued a proposed rule in 2013 after some data suggested that long-term exposure to certain active ingredients used in antibacterial products — for example, triclosan (liquid soaps) and triclocarban (bar soaps) — could pose health risks, such as bacterial resistance or hormonal effects. Under the proposed rule, manufacturers were required to provide the agency with additional data on the safety and effectiveness of certain ingredients used in over-the-counter consumer antibacterial washes if they wanted to continue marketing antibacterial products containing those ingredients. This included data from clinical studies demonstrating that these products were superior to non-antibacterial washes in preventing human illness or reducing infection.
Antibacterial hand and body wash manufacturers did not provide the necessary data to establish safety and effectiveness for the 19 active ingredients addressed in this final rulemaking. For these ingredients, either no additional data were submitted or the data and information that were submitted were not sufficient for the agency to find that these ingredients are Generally Recognized as Safe and Effective (GRAS/GRAE).
6 September 2016 @ 7:12 am.
Last modified September 6, 2016.
The EFP website has posted the other day a debate between Professors Lior Shapira of the Jerusalem Hebrew University and Andrea Mombelli, Geneva. Is it time to rethink on the use of antibiotics in the treatment of periodontitis? Well, it actually is. One cannot continue just emphasizing the undeniable (if short-term) effect of antibiotics reducing the need and extent of periodontal surgery when administered as an adjunct to non-surgical treatment (Mombelli) without having the much bigger picture (real global threats of antibiotic resistance development) in mind (Shapiro). I have written about recent respective clinical reports on (transient) effects of adjunct antibiotics numerous times on this blog, see, for example here, here and here. I never concealed my opinion. Biofilm infections are indeed different.
No wonder when our professional societies and academies want to promote it with the above images. The Facebook page of the German Society of Periodontology features the left image while the right supports a recent statement by the American Academy of Periodontology’s President, Dr. Wayne Aldredge, regarding the U.S. Departments of Agriculture and Health and Human Services recent decision to remove flossing from the federal 2015-2020 Dietary Guidelines, citing the gap in quality research.
When the European Federation of Periodontology (EFP) was about to publish their 2014 workshop proceedings, eyebrows were raised in particular after reports of a press conference emerged. I remember that “Flossing may be a waste of time” (as there was no evidence for the prevention of interdental gingivitis found after thorough literature search), but can’t find the respective newspaper article anymore. As Professor Iain Chapple outlined, if there is space in between teeth, interdental brushes would do better as an adjunct to toothbrushing.