## 2 Materials and Methods  
### Review Design  
A systematic review was carried out in compliance with the recommendations provided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines [26]. The databases of MEDLINE and Embase as well as the databanks of the Cochrane library were searched to locate relevant trials that were published between 2015 and 2022. The potentially relevant papers were searched for references, and those references were examined for further records. We also scrutinized the reference lists of the selected articles, as well as review articles on the topic, and screened for grey literature. The studies were chosen by two reviewers who were blinded (EF and BR). Disagreements were resolved by reaching a unanimous decision. The PICOT (which stands for Population, Intervention, Comparison(s), Outcome, and Time/Study Period and Date Started) strategy was utilized in order to generate the guiding question that was to be used for the execution of the study. In order to pick the MeSH terms, the search strategy was executed by utilizing the platforms provided by the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and MEDLINE; we used combinations of the following MeSH terms and supplemented with a keywords or title search (Table 1): \"NLRP3\"[All Fields] AND (\"inflammasomes\"[MeSH Terms] OR \"inflammasomes\"[All Fields] OR \"inflammasome\"[All Fields]) AND (\"periodontal\"[All Fields] OR \"periodontaly\"[All Fields] OR \"periodontially\"[All Fields] OR \"periodontics\"[MeSH Terms] OR \"periodontics\"[All Fields] OR \"periodontic\"[All Fields] OR \"periodontitis\"[MeSH Terms] OR \"periodontitis\"[All Fields] OR \"periodontitides\"[All Fields]) AND (\"diabetes\"[All Fields] OR \"diabetes mellitus\"[MeSH Terms] OR (\"diabetes\"[All Fields] AND \"mellitus\"[All Fields]) OR \"diabetes mellitus\"[All Fields] OR \"diabetes\"[All Fields] OR (\"diabetes\"[All Fields]) OR \"diabetes\"[All Fields])). In order to map the number of identified entries that were included and excluded in order for the studies to be eligible for consideration, a PRISMA flowchart (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis) was utilized ([[http://prisma-statement.org/prismstatement/flowdiagram.aspx](http://prisma-statement.org/prismstatement/flowdiagram.aspx)]([http://prisma-statement.org/prismstatement/flowdiagram.aspx](http://prisma-statement.org/prismstatement/flowdiagram.aspx)), accessed on 12 July 2022). This flowchart was used to describe the information that was gathered during the various phases of the review (Figure 1). screened by two authors (EF and [PERSON]) to determine pertinent studies and to exclude studies violating the inclusion criteria. The selection of primary studies was governed by the following below mentioned eligibility criteria. An electronic data abstraction form was used to systemically collect data from the trials in the development of the report. No language restrictions were applied. To ensure literature saturation, through manual research, we conducted a comprehensive examination of additional studies that had the potential to be eligible. These studies included those that were included in previously established reviews as well as reference lists of retrieved articles. Disagreements between the reviewers were reconciled via arbitration by a third reviewer. In the event that there was a disagreement that could not be resolved, the decision was supposed to be made by a third reviewer who was an expert in the field; however, there were no conflicts that could not be resolved; therefore, this step was not required. We decided to undertake data extraction from the articles and record the results in a spreadsheet. The spreadsheet included columns for the type of study, number of participants, comparator (if any), primary outcome, type of study, and level of evidence. A narrative synthesis of studies that satisfied the inclusion criteria was carried out so that the review would be structured appropriately.