4.4 Article

Association of periodontal pocket area with type 2 diabetes and obesity: a cross-sectional study

期刊

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/bmjdrc-2021-002139

关键词

diabetes complications; obesity; periodontal diseases; inflammation

资金

  1. Japan Society for the Promotion of Science [16K20666, 20K18525]
  2. Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research [20K18525, 16K20666] Funding Source: KAKEN

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found a significant association between PISA and HbA1c, as well as a significant relationship between PISA and the highest tertile of FPG. However, PISA was not significantly associated with BMI or VFA.
Introduction The aim was to investigate the relationship of full-mouth inflammatory parameters of periodontal disease with diabetes and obesity. Research design and methods This cross-sectional study conducted diabetes-related examinations and calculated periodontal inflamed and epithelial surface area (PISA and PESA) of 71 Japanese patients with type 2 diabetes. Multiple linear regression analyses were performed to evaluate associations between PISA or PESA and diabetes and obesity parameters. Results Median value of body mass index (BMI), hemoglobin A1c (HbA1c) level, fasting plasma glucose (FPG) level, and visceral fat area (VFA) were 25.7 kg/m(2), 9.1%, 151 mg/L, and 93.3 cm(2), respectively. PISA and PESA were significantly associated with HbA1c after adjusting for age, sex, BMI, smoking status, and full-mouth plaque control level (PISA: coefficient=38.1, 95% CI 8.85 to 67.29, p=0.001; PESA: coefficient=66.89, 95% CI 21.44 to 112.34, p=0.005). PISA was also significantly associated with the highest FPG tertile (>175 mg/dL) after adjusting for confounders (coefficient=167.0, 95% CI 48.60 to 285.4, p=0.006). PISA and PESA were not significantly associated with BMI or VFA. Conclusion PISA was associated with FPG and HbA1c, but not with obesity parameters, independent from confounders such as full-mouth plaque control level in patients with type 2 diabetes.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据