OBJECTIVE To evaluate the quality of Yindan huoxue tongyu granules. METHODS Taking high performance liquid chromatography with ultraviolet and evaporative light scattering detection as method， the fingerprint of 15 batches of Yindan huoxue tongyu granules was established， and similarity evaluation was performed by Similarity Evaluation System of Chromatographic Fingerprint of TCM （2012 edition） to determine common peaks. The common peaks were identified by comparing with reference substance chromatograms and single decoction piece chromatograms. Network pharmacology was used to screen out core targets and pathways of identified components， construct a “component-target-pathway” network diagram， and predict the pharmacodynamic components of Yindan huoxue tongyu granules， and the content determination of these components was carried out by the same method. RESULTS HPLC fingerprints of 15 batches of Yindan huoxue tongyu granules were characterized with 40 common peaks， and 17 components including salvianolic acid B， astragaloside Ⅳ， notoginsenoside R1， and ginkgolide A were identified. Network pharmacology predicted that 17 components mainly acted on 97 core targets and 137 pathways to exert their pharmacological effect. Average contents of 13 bioactive components in 15 batches of samples were 0.126 8， 0.232 0， 0.073 8， 0.353 2， 3.620 2， 0.191 0， 0.333 3， 0.317 4， 0.785 0， 0.538 2， 0.460 0， 2.475 1 and 0.347 7 mg/g， including calycosin-7-O-β-D-glucoside， rosmarinic acid， formononetin， lithospermic acid， salvianolic acid B， ononin， ginsenoside Rb1， ginsenoside Rd， ginkgolide C， ginkgolide A， ginkgolide B， notoginsenoside R1， and astragaloside Ⅳ. CONCLUSIONS The established fingerprint of Yindan huoxue tongyu granules can reflect the overall characteristics of the preparation. The content determination method for its pharmacodynamic components， developed in combination with network pharmacology， is accurate， reliable， and exhibits good repeatability， making it suitable for evaluating the quality of Yindan huoxue tongyu granules.

Cemental tear is a rare and indetectable condition unless obvious clinical signs present with the involvement of surrounding periodontal and periapical tissues. Due to its clinical manifestations similar to common dental issues, such as vertical root fracture, primary endodontic diseases, and periodontal diseases, as well as the low awareness of cemental tear for clinicians, misdiagnosis often occurs. The critical principle for cemental tear treatment is to remove torn fragments, and overlooking fragments leads to futile therapy, which could deteriorate the conditions of the affected teeth. Therefore, accurate diagnosis and subsequent appropriate interventions are vital for managing cemental tear. Novel diagnostic tools, including cone-beam computed tomography (CBCT), microscopes, and enamel matrix derivatives, have improved early detection and management, enhancing tooth retention. The implementation of standardized diagnostic criteria and treatment protocols, combined with improved clinical awareness among dental professionals, serves to mitigate risks of diagnostic errors and suboptimal therapeutic interventions. This expert consensus reviewed the epidemiology, pathogenesis, potential predisposing factors, clinical manifestations, diagnosis, differential diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis of cemental tear, aiming to provide a clinical guideline and facilitate clinicians to have a better understanding of cemental tear.
Humans ; Dental Cementum/injuries* ; Consensus ; Diagnosis, Differential ; Cone-Beam Computed Tomography ; Tooth Fractures/therapy*

Objective:To evaluate the impact of preemptive analgesia with ibuprofen on postoperative pain following the extraction of impacted mandibular third molars in a Chinese population, aiming to provide a clinical reference for its application.Methods:This multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled parallel-group trial was conducted from April 2022 to October 2023 at the Capital Medical University School of Stomatology (40 cases), Beijing TianTan Hospital, Capital Medical University (22 cases), and Beijing Chao-Yang Hospital, Capital Medical University (20 cases). It included 82 patients with impacted mandibular third molars, with 41 in the ibuprofen group and 41 in the control group. Participants in the ibuprofen group received 300 mg of sustained-release ibuprofen capsules orally 15 min before surgery, while the control group received a placebo. Both groups were instructed to take sustained-release ibuprofen capsules as planned for 3 days post-surgery. Pain intensity was measured using the numerical rating scale at 30 min, 4 h, 6 h, 8 h, 24 h, 48 h, and 72 h after surgery, and the use of additional analgesic medication was recorded during days 4 to 6 postoperatively.Results:All 82 patients completed the study according to the protocol. No adverse events such as nausea, vomiting, or allergies were reported in either group during the trial. The ibuprofen group exhibited significantly lower pain scores at 4 h [2.0 (1.0, 4.0) vs. 4.0 (3.0, 5.0)] ( Z=-3.73, P<0.001), 6 h [2.0 (1.0, 4.0) vs. 5.0(2.5, 6.0)] ( Z=-3.38, P<0.001), and 8 h [2.0 (1.0, 4.0) vs. 5.0 (2.0, 6.0)] ( Z=-2.11, P=0.035) postoperatively compared to the control group. There were no statistically significant differences in pain scores between the groups at 30 min, 24 h, 48 h, and 72 h postoperatively ( P>0.05). Additionally, 11 out of 41 patients (26.8%) in the ibuprofen group and 23 out of 41 patients (56.1%) in the control group required extra analgesic medication between days 4 and 6 post-surgery, with the ibuprofen group taking significantly fewer additional pills [0.0 (0.0, 1.0) vs. 1.0 (0.0, 3.0)] ( Z=-2.81, P=0.005). Conclusions:A pain management regimen involving 300 mg of oral sustained-release ibuprofen capsules administered 15 minutes before surgery and continued for 3 d postoperatively effectively reduces pain levels and the total amount of analgesic medication used after the extraction of impacted mandibular third molars. Considering its efficacy, safety, and cost-effectiveness, ibuprofen is recommended as a first-line drug for perioperative pain management, enhancing patient comfort during diagnosis and treatment in a feasible manner.

Objective:To evaluate the effect of preemptive analgesia with ibuprofen on postoperative pain following single posterior tooth implantation, aiming to provide a clinical reference for its application.Methods:A multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled parallel-group trial was conducted. A total of 82 participants were included in the trial, meeting the eligibility criteria from April 2022 to April 2024 at the Capital Medical University School of Stomatology (40 cases), Beijing TianTan Hospital, Capital Medical University (22 cases), Beijing Chao-Yang Hospital, Capital Medical University (20 cases). Participants were randomly assigned in a 1∶1 ratio to either the ibuprofen group or the control group, with each group comprising 41 individuals. Participants in the ibuprofen group received 300 mg of sustained-release ibuprofen capsules orally 15 min before surgery, while the control group received a placebo. Both groups received the same postoperative analgesic regimen for 3 days. Pain scores were assessed using the numerical rating scale at 30 min, 4 h, 6 h, 8 h, 24 h, 48 h, and 72 h postoperatively, and the additional use of analgesic medication was recorded from days 4 to 6 postoperatively.Results:A total of 82 participants were initially enrolled in the study, with 7 dropouts (4 from the control group and 3 from the ibuprofen group), resulting in 75 participants (37 in the control group and 38 in the ibuprofen group) completing the trial. There were no reports of adverse events such as nausea or vomiting among the participants. The ibuprofen group exhibited significantly lower pain scores at 4 h, 6 h and 8 h [1.0 (0.0, 2.0), 1.0 (0.0, 2.0), 1.5 (0.0, 3.0) ] postoperatively compared to the control group 4 h, 6 h and 8 h [2.0 (1.0, 3.0), 3.0 (1.5, 4.0), 2.0 (1.0, 4.0)] ( Z=-1.99, P=0.047; Z=-3.01, P=0.003; Z=-2.10, P=0.036). The proportions of patients requiring additional analgesic medication between days 4 and 6 post-surgery were 18.4% (7/38) in the ibuprofen group and 27.0% (10/37) in the control group, with no significant difference (χ 2=0.79, P=0.373). The median additional medication usage postoperatively was [0.0 (0.0, 0.0) pills] in the ibuprofen group and [0.0 (0.0, 1.0) pills] in the control group, with no significant difference ( Z=-0.78, P=0.439). Conclusions:Preemptive analgesia with ibuprofen effectively reduces postoperative pain following tooth implantation, representing a safe and effective perioperative pain management strategy.

The overall health condition of patients significantly affects the diagnosis,treatment,and prognosis of endodontic diseases.A systemic consideration of the patient's overall health along with oral conditions holds the utmost importance in determining the necessity and feasibility of endodontic therapy,as well as selecting appropriate therapeutic approaches.This expert consensus is a collaborative effort by specialists from endodontics and clinical physicians across the nation based on the current clinical evidence,aiming to provide general guidance on clinical procedures,improve patient safety and enhance clinical outcomes of endodontic therapy in patients with compromised overall health.

Objective:To evaluate the safety of double and a half layered esophagojejunal anastomosis in radical gastrectomy.Methods:This prospective, multi-center, single-arm study was initiated by the Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Zhengzhou University in June 2021 (CRAFT Study, NCT05282563). Participating institutions included Nanyang Central Hospital, Zhumadian Central Hospital, Luoyang Central Hospital, First Affiliated Hospital of Henan Polytechnic University, First Affiliated Hospital of Henan University, Luohe Central Hospital, the People's Hospital of Hebi, First People's Hospital of Shangqiu, Anyang Tumor Hospital, First People's Hospital of Pingdingshan, and Zhengzhou Central Hospital Affiliated to Zhengzhou University. Inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) gastric adenocarcinoma confirmed by preoperative gastroscopy;(2) preoperative imaging assessment indicated that R0 resection was feasible; (3) preoperative assessment showed no contraindications to surgery;(4) esophagojejunostomy planned during the procedure; (5) patients volunteered to participate in this study and gave their written informed consent; (6) ECOG score 0–1; and (7) ASA score I–III. Exclusion criteria were as follows: (1) history of upper abdominal surgery (except laparoscopic cholecystectomy);(2) history of gastric surgery (except endoscopic submucosal dissection and endoscopic mucosal resection); (3) pregnancy or lactation;(4) emergency surgery for gastric cancer-related complications (perforation, hemorrhage, obstruction); (5) other malignant tumors within 5 years or coexisting malignant tumors;(6) arterial embolism within 6 months, such as angina pectoris, myocardial infarction, and cerebrovascular accident; and (7) comorbidities or mental health abnormalities that could affect patients' participation in the study. Patients were eliminated from the study if: (1) radical gastrectomy could not be completed; (2) end-to-side esophagojejunal anastomosis was not performed during the procedure; or (3) esophagojejunal anastomosis reinforcement was not possible. Double and a half layered esophagojejunal anastomosis was performed as follows: (1) Open surgery: the full thickness of the anastomosis is continuously sutured, followed by embedding the seromuscular layer with barbed or 3-0 absorbable sutures. The anastomosis is sutured with an average of six to eight stitches. (2) Laparoscopic surgery: the anastomosis is strengthened by counterclockwise full-layer sutures. Once the anastomosis has been sutured to the right posterior aspect of the anastomosis, the jejunum stump is pulled to the right and the anastomosis turned over to continue to complete reinforcement of the posterior wall. The suture interval is approximately 5 mm. After completing the full-thickness suture, the anastomosis is embedded in the seromuscular layer. Relevant data of patients who had undergone radical gastrectomy in the above 12 centers from June 2021 were collected and analyzed. The primary outcome was safety (e.g., postoperative complications, and treatment). Other studied variables included details of surgery (e.g., surgery time, intraoperative bleeding), postoperative recovery (postoperative time to passing flatus and oral intake, length of hospital stay), and follow-up conditions (quality of life as assessed by Visick scores).Result:[1] From June 2021 to September 2022,457 patients were enrolled, including 355 men and 102 women of median age 60.8±10.1 years and BMI 23.7±3.2 kg/m2. The tumors were located in the upper stomach in 294 patients, mid stomach in 139; and lower stomach in 24. The surgical procedures comprised 48 proximal gastrectomies and 409 total gastrectomies. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy was administered to 85 patients. Other organs were resected in 85 patients. The maximum tumor diameter was 4.3±2.2 cm, number of excised lymph nodes 28.3±15.2, and number of positive lymph nodes five (range one to four. As to pathological stage,83 patients had Stage I disease, 128 Stage II, 237 Stage III, and nine Stage IV. [2] The studied surgery-related variables were as follows: The operation was successfully completed in all patients, 352 via a transabdominal approach, 25 via a transhiatus approach, and 80 via a transthoracoabdominal approach. The whole procedure was performed laparoscopically in 53 patients (11.6%), 189 (41.4%) underwent laparoscopic-assisted surgery, and 215 (47.0%) underwent open surgery. The median intraoperative blood loss was 200 (range, 10–1 350) mL, and the operating time 215.6±66.7 minutes. The anastomotic reinforcement time was 2 (7.3±3.9) minutes for laparoscopic-assisted surgery, 17.6±1.7 minutes for total laparoscopy, and 6.0±1.2 minutes for open surgery. [3] The studied postoperative variables were as follows: The median time to postoperative passage of flatus was 3.1±1.1 days and the postoperative gastrointestinal angiography time 6 (range, 4–13) days. The median time to postoperative oral intake was 7 (range, 2–14) days, and the postoperative hospitalization time 15.8±6.7 days. [4] The safety-related variables were as follows: In total, there were 184 (40.3%) postoperative complications. These comprised esophagojejunal anastomosis complications in 10 patients (2.2%), four (0.9%) being anastomotic leakage (including two cases of subclinical leakage and two of clinical leakage; all resolved with conservative treatment); and six patients (1.3%) with anastomotic stenosis (two who underwent endoscopic balloon dilation 21 and 46 days after surgery, the others improved after a change in diet). There was no anastomotic bleeding. Non-anastomotic complications occurred in 174 patients (38.1%). All patients attended for follow-up at least once, the median follow-up time being 10 (3–18) months. Visick grades were as follows: Class I, 89.1% (407/457); Class II, 7.9% (36/457); Class III, 2.6% (12/457); and Class IV 0.4% (2/457).Conclusion:Double and a half layered esophagojejunal anastomosis in radical gastrectomy is safe and feasible.

Objective:To evaluate the safety of double and a half layered esophagojejunal anastomosis in radical gastrectomy.Methods:This prospective, multi-center, single-arm study was initiated by the Affiliated Cancer Hospital of Zhengzhou University in June 2021 (CRAFT Study, NCT05282563). Participating institutions included Nanyang Central Hospital, Zhumadian Central Hospital, Luoyang Central Hospital, First Affiliated Hospital of Henan Polytechnic University, First Affiliated Hospital of Henan University, Luohe Central Hospital, the People's Hospital of Hebi, First People's Hospital of Shangqiu, Anyang Tumor Hospital, First People's Hospital of Pingdingshan, and Zhengzhou Central Hospital Affiliated to Zhengzhou University. Inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) gastric adenocarcinoma confirmed by preoperative gastroscopy;(2) preoperative imaging assessment indicated that R0 resection was feasible; (3) preoperative assessment showed no contraindications to surgery;(4) esophagojejunostomy planned during the procedure; (5) patients volunteered to participate in this study and gave their written informed consent; (6) ECOG score 0–1; and (7) ASA score I–III. Exclusion criteria were as follows: (1) history of upper abdominal surgery (except laparoscopic cholecystectomy);(2) history of gastric surgery (except endoscopic submucosal dissection and endoscopic mucosal resection); (3) pregnancy or lactation;(4) emergency surgery for gastric cancer-related complications (perforation, hemorrhage, obstruction); (5) other malignant tumors within 5 years or coexisting malignant tumors;(6) arterial embolism within 6 months, such as angina pectoris, myocardial infarction, and cerebrovascular accident; and (7) comorbidities or mental health abnormalities that could affect patients' participation in the study. Patients were eliminated from the study if: (1) radical gastrectomy could not be completed; (2) end-to-side esophagojejunal anastomosis was not performed during the procedure; or (3) esophagojejunal anastomosis reinforcement was not possible. Double and a half layered esophagojejunal anastomosis was performed as follows: (1) Open surgery: the full thickness of the anastomosis is continuously sutured, followed by embedding the seromuscular layer with barbed or 3-0 absorbable sutures. The anastomosis is sutured with an average of six to eight stitches. (2) Laparoscopic surgery: the anastomosis is strengthened by counterclockwise full-layer sutures. Once the anastomosis has been sutured to the right posterior aspect of the anastomosis, the jejunum stump is pulled to the right and the anastomosis turned over to continue to complete reinforcement of the posterior wall. The suture interval is approximately 5 mm. After completing the full-thickness suture, the anastomosis is embedded in the seromuscular layer. Relevant data of patients who had undergone radical gastrectomy in the above 12 centers from June 2021 were collected and analyzed. The primary outcome was safety (e.g., postoperative complications, and treatment). Other studied variables included details of surgery (e.g., surgery time, intraoperative bleeding), postoperative recovery (postoperative time to passing flatus and oral intake, length of hospital stay), and follow-up conditions (quality of life as assessed by Visick scores).Result:[1] From June 2021 to September 2022,457 patients were enrolled, including 355 men and 102 women of median age 60.8±10.1 years and BMI 23.7±3.2 kg/m2. The tumors were located in the upper stomach in 294 patients, mid stomach in 139; and lower stomach in 24. The surgical procedures comprised 48 proximal gastrectomies and 409 total gastrectomies. Neoadjuvant chemotherapy was administered to 85 patients. Other organs were resected in 85 patients. The maximum tumor diameter was 4.3±2.2 cm, number of excised lymph nodes 28.3±15.2, and number of positive lymph nodes five (range one to four. As to pathological stage,83 patients had Stage I disease, 128 Stage II, 237 Stage III, and nine Stage IV. [2] The studied surgery-related variables were as follows: The operation was successfully completed in all patients, 352 via a transabdominal approach, 25 via a transhiatus approach, and 80 via a transthoracoabdominal approach. The whole procedure was performed laparoscopically in 53 patients (11.6%), 189 (41.4%) underwent laparoscopic-assisted surgery, and 215 (47.0%) underwent open surgery. The median intraoperative blood loss was 200 (range, 10–1 350) mL, and the operating time 215.6±66.7 minutes. The anastomotic reinforcement time was 2 (7.3±3.9) minutes for laparoscopic-assisted surgery, 17.6±1.7 minutes for total laparoscopy, and 6.0±1.2 minutes for open surgery. [3] The studied postoperative variables were as follows: The median time to postoperative passage of flatus was 3.1±1.1 days and the postoperative gastrointestinal angiography time 6 (range, 4–13) days. The median time to postoperative oral intake was 7 (range, 2–14) days, and the postoperative hospitalization time 15.8±6.7 days. [4] The safety-related variables were as follows: In total, there were 184 (40.3%) postoperative complications. These comprised esophagojejunal anastomosis complications in 10 patients (2.2%), four (0.9%) being anastomotic leakage (including two cases of subclinical leakage and two of clinical leakage; all resolved with conservative treatment); and six patients (1.3%) with anastomotic stenosis (two who underwent endoscopic balloon dilation 21 and 46 days after surgery, the others improved after a change in diet). There was no anastomotic bleeding. Non-anastomotic complications occurred in 174 patients (38.1%). All patients attended for follow-up at least once, the median follow-up time being 10 (3–18) months. Visick grades were as follows: Class I, 89.1% (407/457); Class II, 7.9% (36/457); Class III, 2.6% (12/457); and Class IV 0.4% (2/457).Conclusion:Double and a half layered esophagojejunal anastomosis in radical gastrectomy is safe and feasible.

OBJECTIVE To establish the fingerprint of Guiqi tongmai mixture and evaluate its quality in combination with chemical pattern recognition . METHODS Using narirutin as reference peak ，HPLC fingerprint of Guiqi tongmai mixture was established with Similarity Evaluation System of Chromatographic Fingerprint of TCM （2012 edition）. Common peaks identification and similarity evaluation were conducted . Hierarchical cluster analysis （HCA），principle component analysis （PCA）and orthogonal partial least square -discriminate analysis （OPLS-DA）were performed ，and the value of variable importance in the projection （VIP） greater than 1 was taken as the standard to screen the differential markers affecting the quality of Guiqi tongmai mixture . RESULTS Nineteen common peaks in the HPLC fingerprints of thirteen batches of Guiqi tongmai mixture were calibrated ，and the similarities of them were 0.928-0.990；eight common peaks were identified ，including the peak 7（hydroxysafflor yellow A ），peak 8（albiflorin），peak 9（paeoniflorin），peak 10（calycosin-7-O-glucoside），peak 12（liquiritin），peak 14（ammonium glycyrrhizinate ）， peak 16（narirutin）and peak 19（hesperidin）. According to the results of HCA ，thirteen batches of samples could be clustered into three categories ：S5，S9 and S 11-S13 were clustered into one category ；S4 and S 8 were clustered into one category ；S1-S3，S6- S7 and S 10 were clustered into one category . The results of PCA indicated that the accumulative variance contribution rate of the principle components 1-7 was 92.115%. The results of OPLS -DA showed that VIP values of narirutin ，paeoniflorin，liquiritin， ammonium glycyrrhizinate ，the components corresponding to peak 11 and peak 1 were greater than 1. CONCLUSIONS HPLC fingerprint of Guiqi tongmai mixture is established ，and it could be used for quality evaluation of Guiqi tongmai mixture by combining with chemical pattern recognition techniques . Six components such as narirutin are differential markers affecti ng the quality of Guiqi tongmai mixture .

Objective: To screen the risk factors of patients with frequent acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) by detecting the clinical indicators of periodontitis and the level of bacterial and inflammatory markers in saliva. Methods: Thirty-eight COPD patients in their stable period were recruited and detected from Beijing Chao-Yang Hospital,Capital Medical University during December 2016 to May 2017. The periodontal index were recorded. The levels of inflammatory factors in saliva samples were examined by using enzyme linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). The bacteria composition in the saliva samples were identified by using 16SrRNA gene pyrosequencing. All patients were followed up and monitored for acute exacerbation of COPD for 12 months. The patients were divided into frequent acute exacerbation group (≥2 times/year, n=10) and non frequent acute exacerbation group (<2 times/year, n=28). Results: In univariate analysis, the patients′ average age of frequent acute exacerbation group (69.0±7.3) was significantly older than that of non-frequent acute exacerbation group (61.8±8.3) (P=0.02). The numbers of remaining teeth ≤26 [100% (10/10)] was significantly higher and plaque index ≤2.5 (2/10) in frequent acute exacerbation group was significantly lower compared with the remaining teeth ≤26 [43% (12/28)] and the plaque index ≤2.5 [71% (21/28)] in non-frequent acute exacerbation group (P=0.02, P=0.01). The proportions of salivary inflammatory factors interleukin-6 (IL-6) level ≤60 ng/L (10%),C-reactive protein (CRP) level ≤1 550 μg/L (30%), matrix metalloproteinase-8 (MMP-8) level ≤140 μg/L (30%) and fibrinogen level ≤90 mg/L (30%) in frequent acute exacerbation group were significantly lower compared with salivary inflammatory factors IL-6 level ≤60 ng/L (71%),CRP level ≤1 550 μg/L (71%), MMP-8 level ≤140 μg/L (86%) and fibrinogen level ≤90 mg/L (71%) in non-frequent acute exacerbation group (P<0.05). The differences of relative abundances of salivary bacteria,such as species of Chloroflexi, Anaerolineae, Anaeroales, Corynebacteriales, Anaerolineaceae, Tissierellaceae, Leptotrichiaceae, Corynebacteriaceae, Leptotrichia, Moryella, Lachnoanaerobaculum and Corynebacterium between frequent acute exacerbation group and non-frequent acute exacerbation group were significantly different (P<0.05). In multivariate logistics regression analysis,the level of IL-6 >60 ng/L and the relative abundance of Corynebacteriales >0.2 had significant difference (P<0.05). Conclusions The level of IL-6 and the relative abundance of Corynebacteriales might be the markers of frequent acute exacerbation in COPD patients.

Objective: To evaluate the effects of periodontal therapy on the quality of life in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients with chronic periodontitis (CP). Methods: In a randomized controlled pilot study, 60 COPD patients with CP were randomly assigned into three groups to receive scaling and root planing (SRP) treatment, supragingival scaling treatment and oral hygiene instructions only with no periodontal treatment, respectively. The scores of each patient′s quality of life at baseline, 1 year and 2 years, respectively, were evaluated by using the standardized St George′s respiratory questionnaire (SGRQ). The SGRQ was composed of three dimensions: symptoms, activity, and impact. A score was calculated for each section and a total summary score was also calculated. A high score indicated poor health and a decrease in the score indicates an improvement in quality of life. Results: There were no statistically significant differences among the three groups for age, gender, body mass index, smoking status, lung funtion, periodontal parameters and the SGRQ scores (including total, symptoms, activity and impacts scores) among three groups at baseline (all P>0.05). The SGRQ scores were all significantly correlated with major lung function parameters (r=-0.54 --0.28). The result of ANCOVA analysis adjusted for the influence of baseline measurements showed that the total scores of two periodontal treatment groups were significantly lower (P=0.01) than that of control group at 2-year follow-up (SRP group: 31.1±12.1; scaling group: 28.9±9.8; control group: 46.5±24.9). The symptoms score of SRP group (45.4±19.7) was significantly lower (P=0.03) than that of control group (53.6±25.4) at 2-year follow-up. The impacts scores of two treatment groups were significantly lower (P=0.02) than that of control group at 2-year follow-up (SRP group: 15.2±8.3; scaling group: 14.9±7.7; control group: 34.8±18.8). Conclusions Our preliminary results from this study suggest that non-surgical periodontal treatment in COPD patients with CP might improve the quality of life of the COPD patient.