Evidence Hub

Systemic effects of experimental apical periodontitis in animal models: Does lesion burden modulate circulating inflammatory and metabolic responses? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Almir Gabriel Bolonhez Rodrigues, Ana Carla Thalez Ywabuchi Nobumoto, Anna Clara Cachoni, G. W. L. Tessarin, B. E. Belardi, Maria Sara de Lima Coutinho Mattera, Regiane Lorejan Ferreira, K. B. de Souza et al.

Archives of Oral Biology, 2026

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated whether experimental apical periodontitis (AP) in rodents induces systemic inflammatory and metabolic alterations and whether lesion burden influences these responses.

DESIGN

The review followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses 2020 guidelines and was registered in PROSPERO. PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and LILACS/BIREME were searched through June 2026. Experimental rodent studies with AP induction, condition-matched controls without AP, and quantitative systemic biomarkers were included. Primary outcomes were circulating inflammatory cytokines; secondary outcomes included glycemic, insulin-related, and lipid parameters. Hedges' g was pooled using multilevel random-effects models, with effect sizes nested within studies. Meta-regression assessed lesion burden, experimental duration, comorbidity, and animal model when sufficient data were available.

RESULTS

Thirty studies were included in the synthesis. AP was associated with higher circulating tumor necrosis factor-α (g = 1.69), interleukin (IL)-6 (g = 0.96), and IL-1β (g = 1.84), whereas IL-10, IL-17, and IL-18 were not significantly altered. AP was also associated with higher insulin (g = 1.19) and homeostatic model assessment for insulin resistance (HOMA-IR) (g = 1.55), but not with glucose, total cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein, low-density lipoprotein, or triglycerides. Lesion burden did not significantly…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in animal, not in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free