Volume 85 • Number 7
Letters to the Editor To the Editor: Re: Intrapregnancy Non-Surgical Periodontal Treatment and Pregnancy Outcome: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Pirie M, Linden G, Irwin C. (J Periodontol 2013;84:1391-1400.) In reading the paper by Pirie et al. titled ‘‘Intrapregnancy non-surgical periodontal treatment and pregnancy outcome: A randomized controlled trial,’’1 some methodological flaws in the study raise concern about the validity of its conclusion. The objective of the study was to test whether non-surgical treatment of periodontal disease had an effect on pregnancy outcomes in terms of gestational age and birth weight. The test group received non-surgical periodontal therapy (PT) that ‘‘. . .consisted of oral hygiene instruction, followed by supragingival and subgingival scaling and root planing (SRP) of sites with PDs ‡4 mm and polishing of all the teeth. . .[that] was performed over two 1-hour sessions.’’ No maintenance treatment was given. The authors concluded: ‘‘The results of the POPET [Pregnancy Outcome and Periodontal Treatment] study, combined with the findings of other recently published intervention studies,[2,3] do not support the suggestion that non-surgical periodontal treatment, performed during weeks 20 to 24 of pregnancy, influences pregnancy outcome in white populations.’’ I wish to express my concern about the validity of the study’s conclusion. Among the conditions that a clinical trial aiming to test the effect of PT on pregnancy outcomes must fulfill is that the PT used was effective to eliminate the exposure. Therefore, after PT, the clinical periodontal parameters of women in the treatment group have to be compatible with periodontal health status. The data in Table 2 show a statistically significant decrease in the percentage of bleeding on probing (BOP) sites after periodontal therapy compared to baseline values. BOP decreased from a median of 76 (interquartile range: 70.6 to 83.3) to a median of 50 (interquartile range: 42.9 to 54.1; P
Letters to the Editor To the Editor: Re: Intrapregnancy Non-Surgical Periodontal Treatment and Pregnancy Outcome: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Pirie M, Linden G, Irwin C. (J Periodontol 2013;84:1391-1400.) In reading the paper by Pirie et al. titled ‘‘Intrapregnancy non-surgical periodontal treatment and pregnancy outcome: A randomized controlled trial,’’1 some methodological flaws in the study raise concern about the validity of its conclusion. The objective of the study was to test whether non-surgical treatment of periodontal disease had an effect on pregnancy outcomes in terms of gestational age and birth weight. The test group received non-surgical periodontal therapy (PT) that ‘‘. . .consisted of oral hygiene instruction, followed by supragingival and subgingival scaling and root planing (SRP) of sites with PDs ‡4 mm and polishing of all the teeth. . .[that] was performed over two 1-hour sessions.’’ No maintenance treatment was given. The authors concluded: ‘‘The results of the POPET [Pregnancy Outcome and Periodontal Treatment] study, combined with the findings of other recently published intervention studies,[2,3] do not support the suggestion that non-surgical periodontal treatment, performed during weeks 20 to 24 of pregnancy, influences pregnancy outcome in white populations.’’ I wish to express my concern about the validity of the study’s conclusion. Among the conditions that a clinical trial aiming to test the effect of PT on pregnancy outcomes must fulfill is that the PT used was effective to eliminate the exposure. Therefore, after PT, the clinical periodontal parameters of women in the treatment group have to be compatible with periodontal health status. The data in Table 2 show a statistically significant decrease in the percentage of bleeding on probing (BOP) sites after periodontal therapy compared to baseline values. BOP decreased from a median of 76 (interquartile range: 70.6 to 83.3) to a median of 50 (interquartile range: 42.9 to 54.1; P
