Last updated August 16, 2026
Key finding
Compared with group II, the findings showed a statistically significant decrease in glycated hemoglobin values (p =0.001).
This study investigated the effects of scaling and root planing with systemic doxycycline on glycemic control in type 2 diabetes patients, finding significant improvements in HbA1c levels.
Quick read
The essential study design details in one scan.
EvidenceScore™
Moderate
Study type
RCTs
Follow-up
Extended (5–20+ y)
Risk of bias
Some Concerns
Save research, organize studies, and quickly find important evidence again.
Plain-language summary
A plain-language read of the study’s main message and where it applies.
Study focus
This study investigated the effects of scaling and root planing with systemic doxycycline on glycemic control in type 2 diabetes patients, finding significant improvements in HbA1c levels.
Improving glycemic control is crucial for managing type 2 diabetes and reducing complications. This study suggests that incorporating dental treatments like scaling and root planing with systemic doxycycline can enhance overall health outcomes for diabetic patients.
Limited sample size may affect generalizability. Short follow-up period may not capture long-term effects. Potential confounding factors not fully controlled.
Published in
Publication details and source links for this paper.
Hiroj B, Ashish KS, Priyanka PC, Niharika B, Debasmita G, Laxmi K. Scaling and root planing with systemic doxycycline improves glycemic control in type 2 diabetes patients. Journal of Pharmacy & Bioallied Sciences. 2023;15(Suppl 2):S956-S959. doi:10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_268_23
HbA1c decreased by 0.6 percentage points (p = 0.001) in the doxycycline group.
Clinical attachment improved by 0.3 units (p = 0.022) in the doxycycline group.
Gingival index improved by 0.2 units (p = 0.009) in the doxycycline group.
Evidence network
Understand where this research contributes within the broader evidence network.
This study contributes evidence to Scaling and root planing followed by systemic doxycycline, Scaling and root planing only and Clinical attachment level, Gingival Index (GI), HbA1c.
This study contributes evidence to
Primary intervention
Scaling and root planing followed by systemic doxycycline
Primary outcomes
Evidence topics
Primary intervention
Primary outcomes
Intervention and outcome relationships this study adds to the evidence network.
Editorial context
See why this paper is useful beyond its individual results.
Evidence network role
This section describes how the study fits into the current evidence network. It does not determine whether an intervention works on its own.
1
Related topics
6
Evidence pairs
348
Related studies
Evidence topic
Contributes evidence
Save studies and evidence pages, organize your personal Evidence Tracker, and keep the research you care about in one place.
Primary evidence
Evidence relationship
Related evidence
Evidence topic
Save evidence
Intervention
Save evidence
Core evidence
The primary outcomes reported in this study.
Scaling and root planing followed by systemic doxycycline → Clinical attachment level
Scaling and root planing followed by systemic doxycycline → Clinical attachment level
Scaling and root planing followed by systemic doxycycline → Gingival Index (GI)
Scaling and root planing followed by systemic doxycycline → Gingival Index (GI)
Scaling and root planing followed by systemic doxycycline → HbA1c
Scaling and root planing followed by systemic doxycycline → HbA1c
Scaling and root planing only → Clinical attachment level
Scaling and root planing only → Clinical attachment level
Scaling and root planing only → Gingival Index (GI)
Scaling and root planing only → Gingival Index (GI)
Evidence Library
Save research, organize studies, and quickly find important evidence again.
Evidence Library
Save research, organize studies, and quickly find important evidence again.
Explore related studies, evidence collections, and research questions.
Relationships organized using the Dediabetes Evidence Intelligence™ framework.
This study contributes to evidence on Scaling and Root Planing Procedures and Clinical attachment level, Scaling and Root Planing Procedures and Gingival Index (GI).
This study contributes to the evidence on the following intervention-outcome relationships.
Curated evidence collections and hubs this study is part of.
All studies measuring Clinical attachment level
Measures Clinical attachment level as a key outcome.
All studies measuring Gingival Index (GI)
Measures Gingival Index (GI) as a key outcome.
All studies on Scaling and Root Planing Procedures
Contributes to Scaling and Root Planing Procedures evidence base.
Jump to pre-filtered views in Evidence Explorer.
3 results
3 results
3 results
3 results
3 results
Generated from the study's connected evidence using Evidence Intelligence™.
Scaling and Root Planing Procedures appears to improve HbA1c.
ConsistencyScore™: Results are consistent across studies.
Ranked evidence signals
HbA1c
EvidenceScore™ Moderate | EvidenceScore™ 69.0 | strong positive | ConsistencyScore™ Consistent | 1 study
Why this answer: This answer is based on 5 supporting studies with consistent results and a positive effect signal.
Limitations
Scaling and root planing only may improve Clinical attachment level.
ConsistencyScore™: Results are generally consistent across studies.
Ranked evidence signals
Clinical attachment level
EvidenceScore™ Strong | EvidenceScore™ 79.0 | moderate positive | ConsistencyScore™ Generally Consistent | 1 study
Why this answer: This answer is based on a single supporting study.
Limitations
Scaling and root planing only may improve Gingival Index (GI).
ConsistencyScore™: Results are generally consistent across studies.
Ranked evidence signals
Gingival Index (GI)
EvidenceScore™ Strong | EvidenceScore™ 79.0 | moderate positive | ConsistencyScore™ Generally Consistent | 1 study
Why this answer: This answer is based on a single supporting study.
Limitations
Scaling and root planing followed by systemic doxycycline appears to improve Clinical attachment level.
ConsistencyScore™: Consistency cannot yet be determined from the available evidence.
Ranked evidence signals
Clinical attachment level
EvidenceScore™ Emerging | EvidenceScore™ 59.0 | strong positive | ConsistencyScore™ Unclear | 1 study
Why this answer: This answer is based on a single supporting study.
Limitations
Next steps
Choose a next path through related evidence topics, Evidence Explorer views, and research summaries.
Open broader Evidence Explorer views for this relationship.
Read related research summaries.
Focused on evidence, not advertising.
Your data is always protected.
New studies added every day.
