| Literature DB >> 27645514 |
Sergio Varela Kellesarian1, Hans Malmstrom1, Tariq Abduljabbar2, Fahim Vohra2, Tammy Varela Kellesarian3, Fawad Javed1, Georgios E Romanos4,5.
Abstract
There is a debate over the association between low testosterone levels in body fluids and the occurrence of chronic periodontitis (CP). The aim of the present systematic review was to assess whether low testosterone levels in body fluids reflect CP. In order to identify studies relevant to the focus question: "Is there a relationship between low testosterone levels in body fluids and CP?" an electronic search without time or language restrictions was conducted up to June 2016 in indexed databases using different keywords: periodontitis, chronic periodontitis, periodontal diseases, testosterone, and gonadal steroid hormones. A total of eight studies were included in the present systematic review. The number of study participants ranged from 24 to 1,838 male individuals with ages ranging from 15 to 95 years. Seven studies measured testosterone levels in serum, two studies in saliva, and one study in gingiva. Four studies reported a negative association between serum testosterone levels and CP. Two studies reported a positive association between decreased testosterone levels in serum and CP. Increased levels of salivary testosterone among patients with CP were reported in one study; whereas one study reported no significant difference in the concentration of salivary testosterone between patients with and without CP. One study identified significant increase in the metabolism of testosterone in the gingiva of patients with CP. Within the limits of the evidence available, the relationship between low testosterone levels and CP remains debatable and further longitudinal studies and control trials are needed.Entities:
Keywords: hormones; men’s health; periodontal diseases; periodontitis; testosterone
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27645514 PMCID: PMC5675296 DOI: 10.1177/1557988316667692
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Am J Mens Health ISSN: 1557-9883
Figure 1.Article selection flow chart for the systematic review according to PRISMA guidelines.
Note. PRISMA = Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses.
General Characteristics of the Studies Included.
| Authors (region of study) | Study groups | Age in years (range) | Periodontal status diagnosis method | Testosterone measurement method | Confounding variables assessed |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 48 Male | 19-21 | Clinical examination (PI, GI, BOP, PD, CAL) | Serum (NA) | Systemic conditions | |
| Group 1: 12 HH + CP | Group 1: 20.83 ± 0.93 | Periodontal therapy | |||
| Group 2: 12 HH + HP | Group 2: 20.50 ± 0.67 | Radiographs (FMX) | |||
| Group 3: 12 SH + CP | Group 3: 20.58 ± 0.90 | ||||
| Group 4: 12 SH + HP | Group 4: 20.91 ± 0.93 | ||||
| 24 Male | Group 1: 30-40 | Clinical examination (RPI, PD, mobility, MBL) | Serum: RIA | None | |
| Group 1: 14 CP | Group 2: 28-36 | Parotid saliva: Carlson–Crittenden device | |||
| Group 2: 10 HP | Radiographs | ||||
| First exam: 1,210 Men | First exam: 74.6 (66-95) | Clinical examination (tooth loss, CAL, PD) | Serum: RIA | Race | |
| Smoking | |||||
| BMI | |||||
| Second exam: 1,019 Men | Second exam: 76.4 | Education level | |||
| Diabetes mellitus | |||||
| Group 1: 1,838 men for number of teeth | Group 1: 50 (36-63) | Clinical examination (tooth loss, CAL) | Serum: Competitive chemiluminescent enzyme immunoassay | Smoking | |
| Diabetes mellitus | |||||
| Physical activity | |||||
| Group 2: 1,548 men for CAL | Group 2: 46 (34-59) | Waist circumference | |||
| Socioeconomic status | |||||
| Educational level | |||||
| 203 SH + CP | 45-65 | Clinical examination (CAL, PD, mobility) | Serum: Enzyme immunoassay | Systemic conditions | |
| Smoking | |||||
| Group 1: Completely dentate and partially dentate | Alcohol | ||||
| Group 2: Tooth loss <3 and >3 | Medications | ||||
| Group 3: Tooth loss <5 and >5 | |||||
| 755 Men | 45 ± 0.5 | Clinical examination (CAL, PD) | Serum: Competitive chemiluminescent enzyme immunoassay | Systemic conditions | |
| Race | |||||
| Diabetes mellitus | |||||
| Smoking | |||||
| Educational level | |||||
| BMI | |||||
| Alcohol | |||||
| 10 Males | Group 1:15-32 (31 ± 12) | Clinical examination(RPI, OHI) | Serum: RIA | NA | |
| Group 1: RPI <0.5 | Group 2: 18-29 (20 ± 6) | ||||
| Group 2: RPI 0.5-1.5 | Group 3: 18-19 (20 ± 3) | Radiographs | Gingiva: Histological evaluation | ||
| Group 3: RPI 1.6-4 | |||||
| 40 Males | Group 1: 43 ± 13 | Clinical examination (GI, PD, mobility) | Saliva: RIA | Systemic conditions | |
| Group 1: 8 SH + HP | Group 2: 45 ± 15 | Radiographs (MBL) | |||
| Group 2: 11 SH + CP | Group 3: 49 ± 13 | Histological evaluation | |||
| Group 3: 8 DM + HP | Group 4: 50 ± 14 | ||||
| Group 4: 13 DM + CP |
Note. HH = hypergonadotropic hypogonadism; CP = chronic periodontitis; HP = healthy periodontum; SH = systemically healthy; PI = plaque index; GI = gingival index; BOP = bleeding on probing; PD = probing depth; CAL = clinical attachment loss; FMX = complete intra oral series; RIA = radioimmunoassay; BMI = body mass index; RPI = Russell’s periodontal index; OHI = oral hygiene index; DM = diabetes mellitus; MBL = marginal bone loss; NA = not applicable.
Primary Outcomes of the Studies Included.
| Relationship between male testosterone levels and periodontal disease | ||
|---|---|---|
| Authors | Saliva and/or gingiva | Serum |
|
| NA | Positive[ |
| Negative (CAL, PD) | ||
|
| Positive[ | Negative |
|
| NA | Negative |
|
| NA | Negative |
|
| NA | Positive[ |
|
| NA | Positive[ |
|
| Positive[ | Negative |
|
| Negative (saliva) | NA |
Note. GI = gingival index; BOP = bleeding on probing; PD = probing depth; CAL = clinical attachment loss; NA = not applicable.
Lower testosterone levels. bHigher testosterone levels.
CASP Quality Assessment of the Reviewed Articles.
| Authors | Item 1 | Item 2 | Item 3 | Item 4 | Item 5 | Item 6 | Item 7 | Item 8 | Item 9 | Item 10 | Item 11 | Item 12 | Total quality score (0-12) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Yes | Yes | Cannot tell | Yes | No | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | 9 |
|
| Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | 10 |
|
| Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | 12 |
|
| Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | 12 |
|
| Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | 11 |
|
| Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | 12 |
|
| Yes | Cannot tell | Yes | Yes | No | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | 9 |
|
| Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Cannot tell | No | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | 10 |
Note. Item 1 = study issue is clearly focused; Item 2 = cohort is recruited in an acceptable way; Item 3 = exposure is accurately measured; Item 4 = outcome is accurately measured; Item 5 = confounding factors are addressed; Item 6 = follow-up is long and complete; Item 7 = results are clear; Item 8 = results are precise; Item 9 = results are credible; Item 10 = results can be applied to the local population; Item 11 = results fit with available evidence; Item 12 = there are important clinical implications.