Periodontitis response to anti-TNF therapy in ankylosing spondylitis

GMC Fabri, RMR Pereira, C Savioli… - JCR: Journal of …, 2015 - journals.lww.com
GMC Fabri, RMR Pereira, C Savioli, CGS Saad, JCB de Moraes, JTT Siqueira, E Bonfa
JCR: Journal of Clinical Rheumatology, 2015journals.lww.com
Background Recently, it has been demonstrated that patients with ankylosing spondylitis
(AS) and rheumatoid arthritis (RA) have a higher risk of periodontitis; however, the effect of
anti-TNF therapy in periodontal status of patients with AS and particularly in dental
attachment is not known. Objective To evaluate longitudinally the local periodontal effect of
TNF-antagonist in AS and compare to patients with RA. Methods Fifteen patients with AS
and 15 RA control patients were prospectively evaluated at baseline and after 6 months (6 …
Abstract
Background
Recently, it has been demonstrated that patients with ankylosing spondylitis (AS) and rheumatoid arthritis (RA) have a higher risk of periodontitis; however, the effect of anti-TNF therapy in periodontal status of patients with AS and particularly in dental attachment is not known.
Objective
To evaluate longitudinally the local periodontal effect of TNF-antagonist in AS and compare to patients with RA.
Methods
Fifteen patients with AS and 15 RA control patients were prospectively evaluated at baseline and after 6 months (6 M) of anti-TNF therapy. Periodontal assessment included: probing pocket depth (PPD), clinical attachment level (CAL), gingival bleeding index, and plaque index. Rheumatologic clinical and laboratory evaluations were the following: Bath AS Disease Activity Index, Bath AS Metrology Index, Bath AS Functional Index, C-reactive protein and erythrocyte sedimentation rate for AS and Disease Activity Score 28 joints, and C-reactive protein and erythrocyte sedimentation rate for patients with RA.
Results
At baseline, periodontal parameters were alike in AS and RA (P> 0.05). After 6 M of anti-TNF therapy, clinical and laboratory parameters of rheumatic diseases decreased significantly in the patients with AS and RA (P< 0.05). A significant improvement in periodontal attachment measurements were observed in the patients with AS (PPD, 2.18 vs 1.94 mm; P= 0.02; CAL, 2.29 vs. 2.02 mm; P= 0.03), but not in RA (PPD, 1.92 vs 2.06 mm; P= 0.06; CAL, 2.14 vs 2.28 mm; P= 0.27). Oral hygiene and gingival inflammation remained unchanged from baseline to 6-M evaluation in AS and RA (P> 0.05).
Conclusion
Patients with AS under anti-TNF improved periodontal attachment. The mechanism for this effect needs further studies.
Lippincott Williams & Wilkins