Assessment of the association between periodontal disease and total cancer incidence and mortality: a meta-analysis

Abstract

Background Periodontal disease (PD) is a chronic inflammatory disease that leads to alveolar bone resorption and tooth loss. Many studies have reported the association between periodontal disease and various cancers including oral cancer, lung cancer, breast cancer and so on. However, there is still no specialized meta-analysis that assesses the association between periodontal disease and cancer incidence and mortality in-deepth. Thus, we conducted this meta-analysis. Methods This meta-analysis was registered with PROSPERO: CRD42020183497. We searched five online databases for observational studies about the association between periodontal disease and breast, prostate, lung and bronchial, colorectal, and total cancers by July 2020. Then we evaluated quality of the included studies by the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Risk ratios (HRs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled to evaluate the strength of the association between periodontal disease and four cancers, total cancer incidence and mortality. In addition, we analyzed heterogeneity by subgroup analysis and sensitivity analysis. Finally, we inspected publication bias by Begg’s and Egger’s tests. Results None of the studies included in this meta-analysis were of poor quality. PD is not only related to breast cancer incidence (HR = 1.26,95%CI [1.11–1.43], I2 = 75.8%, P = 0.000), but also connected with total cancer mortality (HR = 1.40,95%CI [1.24–1.58], I2 = 0.0%, P = 0.718). Subgroup analyses showed that study population, study design, dental status, follow-up period, adjustment for smoking partially explained the heterogeneity between studies. The results of Begg’s test and Egger’s test were consistent and indicated that there is no publication bias in this study. Conclusion In conclusion, this meta-analysis revealed a positive relationship between periodontal disease and breast cancer incidence and total cancer mortality. Further well-designed studies with specific inclusion and exclusion criteria are required to strengthen the conclusion of this meta-analysis. However, longer follow-up period, multi-center trials and even multinational studies are required to corroborate the results.