Mia Rakic, Elena Calciolari, Melissa M. Grant, Sandro Radovanovic, Nagihan Bostanci, Philip M. Preshaw
{"title":"Host Markers of Periodontal Diseases: Meta‐Analysis of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies","authors":"Mia Rakic, Elena Calciolari, Melissa M. Grant, Sandro Radovanovic, Nagihan Bostanci, Philip M. Preshaw","doi":"10.1111/jcpe.14167","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ObjectiveTo identify host markers with optimal diagnostic performance for clinical implementation in the diagnosis of periodontal diseases and prediction of future disease progression and/or disease resolution.Material and MethodsCross‐sectional and prospective studies with ≥ 20 participants per group, reporting diagnostic accuracy (e.g., area under the curve [AUC]) of host markers for periodontal diagnosis (focused question 1 [FQ1]), periodontitis progression/relapse (FQ2) or resolution (FQ3) were searched in three electronic databases. Meta‐analyses estimating diagnostic accuracy (DA) for individual host markers and for grouped salivary and gingival crevicular fluid (GCF) markers independently were performed whenever two or more studies were identified.ResultsSixty‐one eligible studies were identified, of which 13 were included in meta‐analyses for FQ1 (discrimination between health and periodontitis). Matrix metalloproteinase‐8 (MMP‐8) was the most reported biomarker in both saliva and GCF, with comparable AUC (0.70–0.90), sensitivity (0.49–0.84) and specificity (0.62–0.79) in both sample types. Cytokines had good ability for discrimination of periodontitis/gingivitis versus health, although they were substantially less accurate for periodontitis versus gingivitis. Combinations of cytokines and MMPs tended to increase overall diagnostic accuracy but without significant improvement in the case of periodontitis/gingivitis discrimination. Bone markers were the best performing group of salivary markers (AUC = 0.91) when compared to cytokines (AUC = 0.86) and MMPs (AUC = 0.77). GCF microRNAs (MiRs) were a singly meta‐analysed group of biomarkers demonstrating AUC = 0.79.ConclusionReported studies on host periodontal markers exhibit serious limitations regarding clinical and validation standards, being the main cause for lack of progress in clinical implementation of biomarkers in periodontal classification. Disease‐specific markers such as bone markers showed better diagnostic performance (from limited number of studies) for the diagnosis of periodontitis when compared to cytokines and MMPs.","PeriodicalId":15380,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Periodontology","volume":"7 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Periodontology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpe.14167","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
ObjectiveTo identify host markers with optimal diagnostic performance for clinical implementation in the diagnosis of periodontal diseases and prediction of future disease progression and/or disease resolution.Material and MethodsCross‐sectional and prospective studies with ≥ 20 participants per group, reporting diagnostic accuracy (e.g., area under the curve [AUC]) of host markers for periodontal diagnosis (focused question 1 [FQ1]), periodontitis progression/relapse (FQ2) or resolution (FQ3) were searched in three electronic databases. Meta‐analyses estimating diagnostic accuracy (DA) for individual host markers and for grouped salivary and gingival crevicular fluid (GCF) markers independently were performed whenever two or more studies were identified.ResultsSixty‐one eligible studies were identified, of which 13 were included in meta‐analyses for FQ1 (discrimination between health and periodontitis). Matrix metalloproteinase‐8 (MMP‐8) was the most reported biomarker in both saliva and GCF, with comparable AUC (0.70–0.90), sensitivity (0.49–0.84) and specificity (0.62–0.79) in both sample types. Cytokines had good ability for discrimination of periodontitis/gingivitis versus health, although they were substantially less accurate for periodontitis versus gingivitis. Combinations of cytokines and MMPs tended to increase overall diagnostic accuracy but without significant improvement in the case of periodontitis/gingivitis discrimination. Bone markers were the best performing group of salivary markers (AUC = 0.91) when compared to cytokines (AUC = 0.86) and MMPs (AUC = 0.77). GCF microRNAs (MiRs) were a singly meta‐analysed group of biomarkers demonstrating AUC = 0.79.ConclusionReported studies on host periodontal markers exhibit serious limitations regarding clinical and validation standards, being the main cause for lack of progress in clinical implementation of biomarkers in periodontal classification. Disease‐specific markers such as bone markers showed better diagnostic performance (from limited number of studies) for the diagnosis of periodontitis when compared to cytokines and MMPs.
期刊介绍:
Journal of Clinical Periodontology was founded by the British, Dutch, French, German, Scandinavian, and Swiss Societies of Periodontology.
The aim of the Journal of Clinical Periodontology is to provide the platform for exchange of scientific and clinical progress in the field of Periodontology and allied disciplines, and to do so at the highest possible level. The Journal also aims to facilitate the application of new scientific knowledge to the daily practice of the concerned disciplines and addresses both practicing clinicians and academics. The Journal is the official publication of the European Federation of Periodontology but wishes to retain its international scope.
The Journal publishes original contributions of high scientific merit in the fields of periodontology and implant dentistry. Its scope encompasses the physiology and pathology of the periodontium, the tissue integration of dental implants, the biology and the modulation of periodontal and alveolar bone healing and regeneration, diagnosis, epidemiology, prevention and therapy of periodontal disease, the clinical aspects of tooth replacement with dental implants, and the comprehensive rehabilitation of the periodontal patient. Review articles by experts on new developments in basic and applied periodontal science and associated dental disciplines, advances in periodontal or implant techniques and procedures, and case reports which illustrate important new information are also welcome.