Cited by 291Oral microbiology and periodontitis researchDental Health and Care UtilizationDental Research and COVID-19

Periodontal health status and bacteraemia from daily oral activities: systematic review/meta‐analysis

Tomás, Inmaculada, Diz, Pedro, Tobías, Aurelio, Scully, Crispian, Donos, Nikolaos·2012·Journal of Clinical Periodontology

Abstract

Aim: The aim of this study was to investigate the robustness of the observations on the influence of oral hygiene, gingival and periodontal status on the development of bacteraemia from everyday oral activities (B‐EOA), analysing its prevalence, duration, magnitude and bacterial diversity. Material and Methods: This systematic review/meta‐analysis complies with PRISMA reporting guidelines. MEDLINE‐PubMed, the Cochrane Library and Embase were explored for detecting studies on B‐EOA. Results: There were 290 potentially eligible articles, of which 12 article on B‐EOA fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were processed for data extraction (seven on toothbrushing, one on dental flossing and four on chewing). Evaluating the influence of plaque and gingival indices on the prevalence of bacteraemia following toothbrushing, the pooled odds ratios were 2.61 [95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.45–4.69] and 2.77 (95% CI = 1.50–5.11), respectively. None of five studies on bacteraemia following dental flossing and chewing revealed a statistically significant association between oral hygiene, gingival or periodontal status and the development of bacteraemia. Conclusions: Meta‐analysis showed that plaque accumulation and gingival inflammation scores significantly increased the prevalence of bacteraemia following toothbrushing. However, systematic review showed no relationship between oral hygiene, gingival and periodontal status and the development of B‐chewing, and there is no evidence that gingival and periodontal health status affects B‐flossing.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1600-051x.2011.01784.x

Cites

61 of 61 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Tomás, I., Diz, P., Tobías, A., Scully, C., & Donos, N.
Affiliations
  • Universidade de Santiago de Compostela (ES)
  • Special Needs Unit School of Medicine and Dentistry Santiago de Compostela University Santiago de Compostela
  • Institute of Environmental Assesssment and Water Research Spanish Council for Scientific Research Barcelona Spain
  • Oral Medicine and Special Needs Unit
  • University College London (GB)
Corresponding author
Tomás, Inmaculada
Venue
Journal of Clinical Periodontology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2011-09-15
Volume
39
Issue
3
Pages
213-228
ISSN
  • 0303-6979 (ISSN-L)
  • 1600-051X
OpenAlex
W1968931400
Cited by
291
References
61
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 26 · 2022: 25 · 2021: 28 · 2020: 39 · 2019: 21 · 2018: 18 · 2017: 18 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 17 · 2014: 16 · 2013: 14 · 2012: 5
FWCI
1.86
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal Of Clinical Periodontology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Dentistry › Periodontics › Oral microbiology and periodontitis research
  • Health Sciences › Dentistry › Periodontics › Dental Health and Care Utilization
  • Health Sciences › Dentistry › General Dentistry › Dental Research and COVID-19
Keywords
bacteremia, toothbrushing, dental flossing, mastication, oral hygiene, gingivitis, dental plaque, periodontal health, bacterial diversity
MeSH terms
Dental Devices, Home Care, Dental Plaque, Gingivitis, Humans, Mastication, Periodontitis, Toothbrushing, Selection Bias, Bacteremia

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review