Structured population data were available for 4 of 4 supporting studies. 3 studies described participants with type 2 diabetes. 4 studies described adult participants.

Upstream consistency scoring indicates mixed findings across the evidence.

Evidence uses heterogeneous comparison contexts: active_comparator, usual_care.

Control (CTR) group

Core clinician-reference fields are available or not applicable.

Patients received general non-surgical periodontal treatment only.

Scaling and Root Planing (SRP) group

The patients were randomly assigned to the scaling and root planing (SRP) group; the scaling and root planing with additional toothbrushing (SRPAT) group, in which additional toothbrushing was performed by toothpick methods; or the control group.

Patients received non-surgical periodontal treatment accompanied by toothbrushing.

Scaling and Root Planing with Additional Toothbrushing (SRPAT) group

Patients received no additional treatment beyond standard care.

Additional toothbrushing improves oral health in type 2 diabetes patients

SRP group

Patients received scaling and root planing (SRP) and adjunctive aPDT therapy.

SRP + aPDT group

The study was conducted on 49 subjects with type II DM and periodontitis, divided into two groups: the SRP group (n = 25), who followed SRP alone, and the SRP + aPDT group (n = 24), who followed SRP and four weekly sessions of indocyanine green irradiation by an 810 nm diode laser.

Patients received only scaling and root planing (SRP).

Adjunctive therapy improves periodontal outcomes in diabetes patients

Oral hygiene instructions (OHI)

Subjects received full mouth debridement and were instructed in oral hygiene methods.

Non-surgical periodontal therapy (NSPT)

Assigned treatment for the NSPT group was full mouth debridement, which consisted of scaling and root planing, was done in a single visit for all subjects in the NSPT group using an ultrasonic scaler.

Subjects received oral hygiene instructions and motivation without any interventional treatment.

No interventional treatment was given to the OHI group apart from oral hygiene instructions and motivation.

Authoritative quality diagnostic: invalid or missing unit.

Authoritative quality diagnostic: invalid or missing value.

NSPT improves plaque index and glycemic control in diabetes.

Participants received immediate SRP treatment along with oral hygiene instruction.

SRP + OHI

Twenty-seven of them were randomly assigned to receive SRP + OHI treatment immediately.

Participants received only oral hygiene instruction and delayed SRP treatment.

Twenty-four only receive OHI and the delayed SRP treatment.

Subgingival scaling may improve glycemic control in diabetes

Structured population data were available for 3 of 3 supporting studies. 1 study described participants with type 2 diabetes. 3 studies described adult participants.

Structured population data were available for 3 of 3 supporting studies. 2 studies described participants with type 2 diabetes. 3 studies described adult participants.

1 supporting study does not have a displayable topic-matched quantitative effect.

1 study contains conflicting p-value and significance fields; those significance claims are suppressed.

Structured population data were available for 8 of 8 supporting studies. 4 studies described participants with type 2 diabetes. 8 studies described adult participants.

1 relevant study has unresolved authoritative design evidence and does not contribute to design-specific or RoB-specific claims.

Evidence uses heterogeneous comparison contexts: baseline_within_group, unknown_unresolved, usual_care.

2 supporting studies have high, serious, critical, unclear, or unavailable risk-of-bias information.

Evidence uses heterogeneous comparison contexts: baseline_within_group, usual_care.

2 supporting studies do not have a displayable topic-matched quantitative effect.

Evidence uses heterogeneous comparison contexts: active_comparator, unknown_unresolved.

3 supporting studies have high, serious, critical, unclear, or unavailable risk-of-bias information.

Structured population data were available for 4 of 4 supporting studies. 4 studies described participants with type 2 diabetes. 4 studies described adult participants.

Structured population data were available for 5 of 5 supporting studies. Diabetes type was heterogeneous: 2 studies with type 1 diabetes, 1 studies with type 2 diabetes. Age groups were heterogeneous: 2 studies with adult participants, 1 studies with youth participants.

2 relevant studies have unresolved authoritative design evidence and do not contribute to design-specific or RoB-specific claims.

Evidence uses heterogeneous comparison contexts: baseline_within_group, other, usual_care.

4 of 5 studies with duration data have follow-up of 12 weeks or less.

Structured population data were available for 10 of 11 supporting studies. Diabetes type was heterogeneous: 5 studies with type 2 diabetes, 2 studies with type 1 diabetes. 8 studies described adult participants.

3 relevant studies have unresolved authoritative design evidence and do not contribute to design-specific or RoB-specific claims.

3 supporting studies do not have a displayable topic-matched quantitative effect.

Evidence uses heterogeneous comparison contexts: active_comparator, baseline_within_group, placebo, unknown_unresolved, usual_care.

1 supporting study lacks usable structured population information.

4 supporting studies have high, serious, critical, unclear, or unavailable risk-of-bias information.

Structured population data were available for 8 of 8 supporting studies. 7 studies described participants with type 2 diabetes. 7 studies described adult participants.

Evidence uses heterogeneous comparison contexts: active_comparator, baseline_within_group, placebo.

1 supporting study has high, serious, critical, unclear, or unavailable risk-of-bias information.

Structured population data were available for 4 of 4 supporting studies. 4 studies described participants with type 1 diabetes. 2 studies described adult participants.

Structured population data were available for 8 of 8 supporting studies. 6 studies described participants with type 2 diabetes. 7 studies described adult participants.

Evidence uses heterogeneous comparison contexts: active_comparator, unknown_unresolved, usual_care.

Structured population data were available for 8 of 8 supporting studies. Diabetes type was heterogeneous: 4 studies with type 2 diabetes, 1 studies with type 1 diabetes. Age groups were heterogeneous: 4 studies with adult participants, 1 studies with youth participants.

Evidence uses heterogeneous comparison contexts: active_comparator, placebo, usual_care.

5 of 8 studies with duration data have follow-up of 12 weeks or less.

Structured population data were available for 3 of 3 supporting studies. 3 studies described participants with type 2 diabetes. 3 studies described adult participants.

3 of 3 studies with duration data have follow-up of 12 weeks or less.

Evidence uses heterogeneous comparison contexts: active_comparator, placebo.

Evidence uses heterogeneous comparison contexts: active_comparator, baseline_within_group.

Structured population data were available for 3 of 3 supporting studies. Diabetes type was heterogeneous: 1 studies with type 1 diabetes, 1 studies with type 2 diabetes. 2 studies described adult participants.

Structured population data were available for 13 of 13 supporting studies. 11 studies described participants with type 2 diabetes. 12 studies described adult participants.

4 relevant studies have unresolved authoritative design evidence and do not contribute to design-specific or RoB-specific claims.

Evidence uses heterogeneous comparison contexts: active_comparator, baseline_within_group, usual_care.

Evidence uses heterogeneous comparison contexts: unknown_unresolved, usual_care.

Structured population data were available for 3 of 3 supporting studies. Diabetes type was heterogeneous: 2 studies with type 2 diabetes, 1 studies with type 1 diabetes. Age groups were heterogeneous: 2 studies with adult participants, 1 studies with youth participants.

Structured population data were available for 12 of 12 supporting studies. Diabetes type was heterogeneous: 9 studies with type 2 diabetes, 1 studies with type 1 diabetes. 12 studies described adult participants.

9 supporting studies have high, serious, critical, unclear, or unavailable risk-of-bias information.

Structured population data were available for 5 of 5 supporting studies. 5 studies described participants with type 2 diabetes. 4 studies described adult participants.

Structured population data were available for 3 of 3 supporting studies. 2 studies described participants with type 2 diabetes. 2 studies described adult participants.

Structured population data were available for 2 of 3 supporting studies. 2 studies described participants with type 2 diabetes. 2 studies described adult participants.

Evidence uses heterogeneous comparison contexts: active_comparator, placebo, unknown_unresolved.

Structured population data were available for 10 of 10 supporting studies. Diabetes type was heterogeneous: 8 studies with type 2 diabetes, 2 studies with type 1 diabetes. Age groups were heterogeneous: 8 studies with adult participants, 1 studies with youth participants.

Evidence uses heterogeneous comparison contexts: active_comparator, other, usual_care.

3 studies contain conflicting p-value and significance fields; those significance claims are suppressed.

Structured population data were available for 4 of 4 supporting studies. 2 studies described participants with type 2 diabetes. 4 studies described adult participants.

Evidence uses heterogeneous comparison contexts: other, usual_care.

2 of 4 studies with duration data have follow-up of 12 weeks or less.

Structured population data were available for 4 of 4 supporting studies. Diabetes type was heterogeneous: 2 studies with type 2 diabetes, 1 studies with type 1 diabetes. 4 studies described adult participants.

Structured population data were available for 5 of 5 supporting studies. 5 studies described participants with type 2 diabetes. 5 studies described adult participants.

Structured population data were available for 11 of 11 supporting studies. 10 studies described participants with type 2 diabetes. 11 studies described adult participants.

Structured population data were available for 6 of 6 supporting studies. 6 studies described participants with type 2 diabetes. 6 studies described adult participants.

Evidence uses heterogeneous comparison contexts: active_comparator, baseline_within_group, unknown_unresolved, usual_care.

Structured population data were available for 7 of 7 supporting studies. Diabetes type was heterogeneous: 2 studies with type 2 diabetes, 1 studies with type 1 diabetes. 5 studies described adult participants.

Structured population data were available for 5 of 5 supporting studies. 3 studies described participants with type 2 diabetes. 4 studies described adult participants.

Structured population data were available for 5 of 5 supporting studies. Diabetes type was heterogeneous: 4 studies with type 2 diabetes, 1 studies with type 1 diabetes. 3 studies described adult participants.

Evidence uses heterogeneous comparison contexts: baseline_within_group, placebo, usual_care.

SRP + OHI

Evidence signal

Evidence snapshot

Clinical conclusion

Observed effects

Absolute change

Absolute change

Mean difference

Mean difference

Evidence composition

Consistency

Population and applicability

Limitations

Supporting evidence

Evidence signal

Evidence snapshot

Clinical conclusion

Observed effects

Absolute change

Absolute change

Mean difference

Mean difference

Evidence composition

Consistency

Population and applicability

Limitations

Related evidence

Supporting evidence