Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31428231›Full record

SynthesisOxidative medicine and cellular longevity2019

Antioxidants as Adjuvants in Periodontitis Treatment: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Micaele Maria Lopes Castro, Nathallia Neves Duarte, Priscila Cunha Nascimento, Marcela Barauna Magno, Nathalia Carolina Fernandes Fagundes, Carlos Flores-Mir, Marta Chagas Monteiro, Cassiano Kuchenbecker Rösing, Lucianne Cople Maia, Rafael Rodrigues Lima

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Oxidative medicine and cellular longevity, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

33 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Protective Effects of Mixed Probiotics, Oralis SBAntioxidants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Micaele Maria Lopes CastroLaboratory of Functional and Structural Biology, Institute of Biological Sciences, Federal University of Pará, Belém, Brazil.
Nathallia Neves DuarteLaboratory of Functional and Structural Biology, Institute of Biological Sciences, Federal University of Pará, Belém, Brazil.
Priscila Cunha NascimentoLaboratory of Functional and Structural Biology, Institute of Biological Sciences, Federal University of Pará, Belém, Brazil.
Marcela Barauna MagnoDepartment of Pediatric Dentistry and Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
Nathalia Carolina Fernandes FagundesLaboratory of Functional and Structural Biology, Institute of Biological Sciences, Federal University of Pará, Belém, Brazil.
Carlos Flores-MirSchool of Dentistry, Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada.
Marta Chagas MonteiroSchool of Pharmacy, Federal University of Pará, Belém, Pará, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3328-5650
Cassiano Kuchenbecker RösingDepartment of Periodontology, Faculty of Dentistry, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil.
Lucianne Cople MaiaDepartment of Pediatric Dentistry and Orthodontics, School of Dentistry, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1026-9401
Rafael Rodrigues LimaLaboratory of Functional and Structural Biology, Institute of Biological Sciences, Federal University of Pará, Belém, Brazil.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1486-4013

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This systematic review with meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effect of antioxidants as an adjuvant in periodontitis treatment. The following databases were consulted: PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane, Lilacs, OpenGrey, and Google Scholar. Based on the PICO strategy, the inclusion criteria comprised interventional studies including periodontitis patients (participants) treated with conventional therapy and antioxidants (intervention) compared to patients treated only with conventional therapy (control) where the periodontal response (outcome) was evaluated. The risk of bias was evaluated using the Cochrane RoB tool (for randomized studies) and ROBINS-I tool (for nonrandomized studies). Quantitative data were analyzed in five random effects meta-analyses considering the following periodontal parameters: clinical attachment loss (CAL), plaque index (PI), gingival index (GI), bleeding on probing (BOP), and probing depth (PD). After all, the level of certainty was measured with the Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) tool. Among the 1884 studies identified, only 15 interventional studies were according to the eligibility criteria and they were included in our review. From them, 4 articles presented a high risk of bias. The meta-analysis showed a statistically significant difference for CAL (SMD 0.29 (0.04, 0.55),

Indexed as

AntioxidantsCatechinChronic PeriodontitisDatabases, FactualHemorrhageHumansPeriodontal IndexReactive Oxygen SpeciesAntioxidantsCatechinepigallocatechin gallateReactive Oxygen Species

Identifiers

PMID31428231
PMCPMC6679881

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.