Association among gestational diabetes mellitus, periodontitis and prematurity: a cross-sectional study

Carla Andreotti Damante,Gerson Aparecido Foratori,Paula de Oliveira Cunha,Carlos Antonio Negrato,Silvia Helena Carvalho Sales-Peres,Mariana Schutzer Ragghianti Zangrando,Adriana Campos Passanezi Sant’Ana
DOI: https://doi.org/10.20945/2359-3997000000435
2022-01-01
Archives of Endocrinology and Metabolism
Abstract:Objective: Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) causes maternal and infant morbidity. Periodontitis is associated with adverse pregnancy outcomes. The aim of this study was to evaluate periodontal status, prematurity and associated factors in pregnant women with and without GDM.Methods: This observational cross-sectional study included 80 pregnant women with GDM (G1 = 40) and without GDM (G2 = 40). Demographic and socioeconomic status, systemic and periodontal health condition, prematurity and newborns' birth weight were analyzed. For bivariate analysis, Mann-Whitney U-test, t test and Chi-squared test were used. Binary logistic regression analyzed independent variables for periodontitis and prematurity (p < 0.05).Results: Patients from G1 presented lower socioeconomic status, higher weight and body mass index (BMI). Prematurity (G1 = 27.5%; G2 = 2.5%; p < 0.05) and severe periodontitis percentages (G1 = 22.5%; G2 = 0; p = 0.001) were higher in G1 than in G2. Logistic regression analysis showed that household monthly income (OR = 0.65; 95% CI 0.48-0.86; p = 0.003) and maternal BMI (adjusted OR = 1.12; 95% CI 1.01-1.25; p = 0.028) were significant predictors of periodontitis during the third trimester of pregnancy. Presence of GDM remained in the final logistic model related to prematurity (adjusted OR = 14.79; 95% CI 1.80-121.13; p = 0.012).Conclusion: Pregnant women with GDM presented higher severity of periodontitis, lower socioeconomic status, higher overweight/obesity and a 10-fold higher risk of prematurity. Socioeconomic-cultural status and BMI were significant predictors for periodontitis, and GDM was a predictor to prematurity.
What problem does this paper attempt to address?