During the last two decades, there has been an increasing interest in the impact of oral health on atherosclerosis and subsequent cardiovascular disease (CVD). The advent of the inflammation paradigm in coronary pathogenesis stimulated research in chronic infections caused by a variety of micro-organisms—such as Chlamydia pneumoniae, Helicobacter pylori, and cytomegalovirus—as well as dental pathogens, since these chronic infections are thought to be involved in the etiopathogenesis of CVD by releasing cytokines and other pro-inflammatory mediators (e.g., C-reactive protein [CRP], tumor necrosis factor [TNF-α]) that may initiate a cascade of biochemical reactions and cause endothelial damage and facilitate cholesterol plaque attachment. Yet, due to the multi-factorial nature of dental infection and CVD, confirming a causal association is difficult, and the published results are conflicting. The main deficit in the majority of these studies has been the inadequate control of numerous confounding factors, leading to an overestimation and the imprecise measurement of the predictor or overadjustment of the confounding variables, resulting in underestimation of the risks. A meta-analysis of prospective and retrospective follow-up studies has shown that periodontal disease may increase the risk of CVD by approximately 20% (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.08–1.32). Similarly, the reported risk ratio between periodontal disease and stroke is even stronger, varying from 2.85 (CI 1.78–4.56) to 1.74 (CI 1.08–2.81). The association between peripheral vascular disease and oral health parameters has been explored in only two studies, and the resultant relative risks among individuals with periodontitis were 1.41 (CI 1.12–1.77) and 2.27 (CI 1.32–3.90), respectively. Overall, it appears that periodontal disease may indeed contribute to the pathogenesis of cardiovascular disease, although the statistical effect size is small.

Previous analyses regarding effects of periodontal treatment on glycemic control included studies where causal association might not be assumed, or the results were reported non-quantitatively. We initiated this meta-analysis of 10 intervention studies to quantify the effects of periodontal treatment on HbA1c level among diabetic patients, to explore possible causes for the discrepant reports, and to make recommendations for future studies. Data sources were MEDLINE (January, 1980, to January, 2005), the EBMR, Cochrane Register, and bibliographies of the published articles. Three investigators extracted data regarding intervention, outcomes, and effect size. A total of 456 patients was included in this analysis, with periodontal treatment as predictor and the actual change in hemoglobin A1c level as the outcome. The weighted average decrease in actual HbA1c level was 0.38% for all studies, 0.66% when restricted to type 2 diabetic patients, and 0.71% if antibiotics were given to them. However, none was statistically significant.

The WHS comprised 39,876 female health professionals aged ≥45 years who were free of heart disease, stroke, or cancer at baseline. Detailed diet information was provided by 38,018 (95%) of the participants without previously diagnosed diabetes at baseline and who completed a 131-item semiquantitative food frequency questionnaire (6).

Background and Purpose— Accurate diagnosis of the degree of internal carotid artery (ICA) stenosis is needed for decisions regarding optimal stroke prevention. Noninvasive magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) is being proposed and used as a replacement for the gold standard, intra-arterial angiography. Our purpose was to perform a systematic review and diagnostic meta-analysis to determine the sensitivity and specificity of time-of-flight (TOF) MRA and contrast-enhanced (CE) MRA for the detection of (1) high-grade (≥70% to 99%) ICA stenoses; (2) ICA occlusions; (3) moderately severe (50% to 69%) ICA stenoses; and (4) compare the overall accuracy of the 2 MRA techniques. Methods— The medical literature on MRA and the diagnosis of ICA steno-occlusive disease was reviewed through the PubMed, EMBASE, and SCOPUS databases. All publication years were included through to November 2006. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they compared the accuracy of TOF or CE MRA for the detection of ICA disease against intra-arterial angiography and reported sufficient data. Results— The overall sensitivity of TOF MRA for the detection of ≥70% to 99% ICA stenoses was 91.2% (95% CI: 88.9% to 93.1%) with a specificity of 88.3% (86.7% to 89.7%), whereas the sensitivity of CE MRA was 94.6% (92.4% to 96.4%) with a specificity of 91.9% (90.3% to 93.4%). For the detection of ICA occlusions, the sensitivity of TOF MRA was 94.5% (91.2% to 96.8%) and the specificity was 99.3% (98.9% to 99.6%), whereas the sensitivity and specificity values for CE MRA were 99.4% (96.8% to 100%) and 99.6% (99.2% to 99.9%), respectively. For moderately severe (50% to 69%) stenoses, TOF MRA had a sensitivity of only 37.9% (29.3% to 47.1%) and a specificity of 92.1% (89.6% to 94.1%); for CE MRA, the pooled sensitivity value was somewhat better at 65.9% (57.0% to 74.0%), whereas the specificity was 93.5% (91.3% to 95.3%). Conclusions— TOF MRA and CE MRA showed high accuracy for the detection of high-grade ICA stenoses and occlusions with CE MRA having the edge over TOF MRA, but had only poor (TOF MRA) to fair (CE MRA) sensitivity for the detection of moderately severe stenoses.