Meta-analysis of the association between chronic periodontitis and chronic kidney disease

Table 1 Basic characteristics of the literature on the correlation between chronic kidney disease and chronic periodontitis

Ref.	Research location	Research type	Sample size (CKD/non-CKD)	Outcome indicators (number of cases of chronic periodontitis)	Effect size (95%CI)	CP diagnostic criteria
Yoshioka et al[8]	Japan	Cross-sectional study	66 (10/16)	45	OR = 3.169 (1.031-9.742)	According to CPI
Tsai et al[9]	Taiwan of China	Cross-sectional study	1280 (318/926)	668	OR = 3.80 (1.56-9.27)	According to AAP-EFP 2017 Symposium
Ioannidou and Swede[10]	United States of America	Cross-sectional study	3681 (81/3600)	354	OR = 1.59 (1.14-2.13)	According to CDC-AAP
Han et al[11]	Korea	Cross-sectional study	15729 (252/15477)	5143	OR = 1.39 (1.03-1.89)	According to CPI
Fisher et al[12]	United States of America	Cross-sectional study	12947 (617/12330)	784	OR = 1.60 (1.16-2.21)	According to CPI
Lamba et al[13]	United States of America	Cross-sectional study	210 (105/105)	121	OR = 3.954 (2.09-7.45)	According to the 2017 World Symposium on the Classification of Periodontal and Peri-Implant Diseases and Conditions
Kshirsagar et al[4]	United States of America	Cross-sectional study	5537 (110/5427)	3223	OR = 2.14 (1.19-3.85)	As defined by the Working Group on Periodontal Infection Surveillance
Ioannidou et al[14]	United States of America	Cross-sectional study	3686 (59/3627)	105	OR = 1.75 (1.13-2.71)	According to CDC-AAP
Sharma et al[15]	United States of America	Cohort study	13784 (861/12923)	1809	HR = 1.41 (1.36-1.47)	According to CDC-AAP (Page & Eke 2007)
Grubbs et al[16]	United States of America	Cohort study	761 (56/705)	270	RR = 2.01 (1.21–3.44)	According to European seminar standards
Grubbs et al[17]	United States of America	Cohort study	699 (21/678)	114	RR = 4.18 (1.68-10.39)	According to CDC-AAP 2003
Chen et al[18]	Taiwan of China	Cohort study	100263 (550/99713)	13749	OR = 1.59 (1.37-1.86)	According to CPI (CPITN)
Li et al[19]	United States of America	Cohort study	4271	2213	HR = 1.578 (1.54, 1.61)	According to CDC-AAP

CP: Chronic periodontitis; CKD: Chronic kidney disease; CPI: Community Periodontal Index; CPITN: Community Periodontal Index of Treatment Needs; CDC-AAP: Centers for Disease Control and the American Academy of Periodontology; AAP-EFP: American Academy of Periodontology and European Federation of Periodontology.

Table 2 Basic characteristics of clinical attachment level (mm) level difference between patients with chronic kidney disease and non-chronic kidney disease population

Ref.	Research location	Research type	Sample size (CKD/non-CKD)	Average CAL (mm, CKD/non-CKD)
Garcez et al[20]	United States of America	Cross-sectional study	80/80	0.54 ± 0.60/0.44 ± 0.56
Gavaldá et al[21]	Spain	Cross-sectional study	105/53	4.9 ± 2.1/4.2 ± 2.5
Frankenthal et al[22]	Israel	Cross-sectional study	35/35	4.43 ± 0.29/4.03 ± 0.25
Cengiz et al[23]	Türkiye	Cross-sectional study	68/41	3.1 ± 1.5/2.4 ± 1.4
Limeres et al[24]	Portugal	Cross-sectional study	44/44	1.04 ± 0.59/0.71 ± 0.55
Camacho-Alonso et al[25]	Spain	Cross-sectional study	91/118	1.77 ± 0.81/1.15 ± 0.41

CKD: Chronic kidney disease; CAL: Clinical attachment level.

Table 3 Basic characteristics of pocket probing depth (mm) level differences between chronic kidney disease patients and non-chronic kidney disease population

Ref.	Research locaiton	Research type	Sample size (CKD/non-CKD)	Average PPD (mm, CKD/non-CKD)
Garcez et al[20]	United States of America	Cross-sectional study	80/80	0.65 ± 0.75/0.56 ± 0.79
Tollefsen et al[26]	Norway	Cross-sectional study	12/12	2.61 ± 0.85/2.60 ± 0.42
Frankenthal et al[22]	Israel	Cross-sectional study	35/35	2.92 ± 0.14/2.90 ± 0.12
Marakoglu et al[27]	Türkiye	Cross-sectional study	36/36	1.80 ± 0.6/1.8 ± 0.8
Bayraktar et al[28]	Türkiye	Cross-sectional study	116/61	1.89 ± 0.48/1.94 ± 0.62
Cengiz et al[23]	Türkiye	Cross-sectional study	68/41	2.3 ± 0.6/1.6 ± 0.6
Limeres et al[24]	Portugal	Cross-sectional study	44/44	1.55 ± 0.98/0.81 ± 0.94
Camacho-Alonso et al[25]	Spain	Cross-sectional study	91/118	2.33 ± 1.07/1.76 ± 0.71

CKD: Chronic kidney disease; PPD: pocket probing depth

Table 4 Newcastle–Ottawa Scale scores of the cohort study literature

Ref.	Study population selection				Comparability between groups	Outcome measurement			Total points
	Representativeness of the exposed group	Selection of non-exposed groups	Identification of exposure factors	No outcome indicators were available before the study began	Comparability of the resulting cohort based on design and analysis	Methods of evaluating outcome events	Whether the follow-up time was sufficient	Integrity of follow-up
Sharma et al[15]	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	8
Grubbs et al[16]	0	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	7
Grubbs et al[17]	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	8
Chen et al[18]	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	8
Li et al[19]	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	8

Table 5 Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality scores of cross-sectional studies

Ref.	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	Total points
Yoshioka et al[8]	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Uncertain	8
Tsai et al[9]	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Uncertain	Uncertain	8
Ioannidou and Swede[10]	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	No	Yes	Uncertain	8
Han et al[11]	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Uncertain	Uncertain	8
Fisher et al[12]	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Uncertain	Uncertain	8
Lamba et al[13]	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	No	Uncertain	Uncertain	7
Kshirsagar et al[4]	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Uncertain	Uncertain	8
Ioannidou et al[14]	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	No	Uncertain	Uncertain	7
Garcez et al[20]	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Uncertain	No	Uncertain	Uncertain	7
Gavaldá et al[21]	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Uncertain	No	Uncertain	No	Uncertain	Uncertain	5
Frankenthal et al[22]	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	Uncertain	Uncertain	5
Cengiz et al[23]	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Uncertain	Yes	No	No	Uncertain	Uncertain	6
Limeres et al[24]	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	Uncertain	Uncertain	6
Camacho-Alonso et al[25]	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	Yes	Uncertain	8
Tollefsen et al[26]	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	No	Uncertain	Uncertain	6
Marakoglu et al[27]	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	Uncertain	Uncertain	7
Bayraktar et al[28]	Yes	Yes	No	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	No	No	Uncertain	Uncertain	6

1: Are the sources clear? 2: Are the inclusion and exclusion criteria for the two groups clear? 3: Is the time to identify patients clear? 4: Are the subjects continuous? 5: Is the evaluator isolated from other objective measures of the patient? 6: Has quality assurance been assessed? 7: Are excluded objects analyzed? 8: Are confounding factors assessed? 9: Is there any processing of the lost data? 10: Is the data complete? 11: Is there follow-up and analysis?