## 3 Results
### Outcomes of the Studies Included
#### 3.3.2 CAL--Clinical Attachment Level  
To investigate the effects of probiotics on increasing CAL, nine studies [22; 24; 25; 26; 27; 28; 29; 30; 32] collected data on this parameter. Nine studies [22; 24; 25; 26; 27; 29; 30; 31; 32] showed an additional gain in CAL at 3 months in subjects treated with probiotics compared to traditional therapy, and only one study [28] showed no significant differences between the trail and control  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & & \multicolumn{4}{c}{**Clinical Parameters Outcomes**} \\ \hline
**Study** & **PPD** & **CAL** & **PI** & **BOP** & **GI** & **Rec** \\ \hline  & Group T & Group T & & Group T & Group T \\  & Baseline: & Baseline: & Baseline: & Baseline: & Baseline: \\  & 3.23 \(\pm\) 0.44 & 4.39 \(\pm\) 0.86 & & 45.74 \(\pm\) 20.65 & 1.16 \(\pm\) 0.75 \\ [PERSON] et al., & Follow up: & Follow up: & Follow up: & Follow up: & Follow up: \\
2019 & 2.98 \(\pm\) 0.54 & 3.96 \(\pm\) 0.89 Group C & NA & 23.51 \(\pm\) 14.1 Group & NA & 1.00 \(\pm\) 0.66 \\
[29] & Group C & Baseline: & & C & & Group C \\  & Baseline: & Baseline: & & Baseline: & Baseline: \\  & 3.81 \(\pm\) 0.44 & 4.23 \(\pm\) 0.56 & & 74.10 \(\pm\) 22.08 & 2.00 \(\pm\) 0.78 \\  & Follow up: & Follow up: & & Follow up: & Follow up: \\  & 3.66 \(\pm\) 0.36 & 4.17 \(\pm\) 0.42 & & 65.13 \(\pm\) 20.65 & 2.02 \(\pm\) 0.56 \\ \hline  & & & & Group T & & \\  & Group T & Group T & & Baseline: & 56.1 \(\pm\) 9.4 & \\  & Baseline: 2.7 \(\pm\) 0.6 & Baseline: 3.8 \(\pm\) 0.7 & & Follow up: & \\ [PERSON] et al., & Follow up: & Follow up: & & 32.4 \(\pm\) 13.9 & \\
2018 & 2.1 \(\pm\) 0.3 Group C & 3.4 \(\pm\) 0.6 Group C & NA & Group C & NA & NA \\
[30] & Baseline: 3.1 \(\pm\) 0.9 & Baseline: 4.7 \(\pm\) 1.5 & & Baseline: & \\  & Follow up: & Follow up: & & 54.5 \(\pm\) 18.8 & \\  & 2.4 \(\pm\) 0.5 & 4.1 \(\pm\) 1.4 & & Follow up: & \\  & & & & 24.7 \(\pm\) 11.3 & \\ \hline  & & & & Group T & & \\  & Group T & Group T & Baseline: & Baseline: & \\  & Baseline: 6.2 \(\pm\) 1.6 & Baseline: 4.6 \(\pm\) 0.4 & 61.3 \(\pm\) 10.2\% & 66.4 \(\pm\) 11.3\% & \\ [PERSON] et al., & Follow up: & Follow up: & Follow up: & Follow up: & \\  & 4.5 \(\pm\) 0.3 & 4.4 \(\pm\) 0.2 & 36.3 \(\pm\) 4.2\% & 40.1 \(\pm\) 6.1\% & NA & NA \\
2020 & Group C & Group C & Group C & Group C & NA & NA \\
[31] & Baseline: 6.5 \(\pm\) 0.5 & Baseline: 4.1 \(\pm\) 0.3 & Baseline: & Baseline: & \\  & Follow up: & Follow up: & 64.5 \(\pm\) 5.1\% & 71.2 \(\pm\) 9.3\% & \\  & 5 \(\pm\) 0.6 & 4.2 \(\pm\) 0.08 & Follow up: & Follow up: & \\  & & & 42.2 \(\pm\) 6.5\% & 50.5 \(\pm\) 10.2\% & \\ \hline  & & & Group T & Group T & & Group T \\  & Group T & Group T & Baseline: & Baseline: & Baseline: \\  & Baseline: 6.69 \(\pm\) 1.15 & Baseline: 6.23 \(\pm\) 0.62 & 93.50 \(\pm\) 15.65 & 66.75 \(\pm\) 33.41 & 3.23 \(\pm\) 0.78 \\ [PERSON] et al., & Follow up: & Follow up: & Follow up: & Follow up: & Follow up: & \\
2022 & 5.92 \(\pm\) 0.64 & 5.73 \(\pm\) 0.94 & 71.00 \(\pm\) 31.48 & 29.25 \(\pm\) 20.82 & NA & 3.20 \(\pm\) 0.73 \\
[32] & Group C & Group C & Group C & Group C & Group C & Group C \\  & Baseline: 6.88 \(\pm\) 1.26 & Baseline: 6.83 \(\pm\) 1.87 & Baseline: & Baseline: & Baseline: \\  & Follow up: & Follow up: & 79.75 \(\pm\) 21.61 & 81.85 \(\pm\) 17.23 & 3.48 \(\pm\) 1.28 \\  & 6.05 \(\pm\) 2.07 & 6.05 \(\pm\) 2.07 & Follow up: & Follow up: & Follow up: & \\  & & & 78.00 \(\pm\) 20.03 & 69.25 \(\pm\) 18.16 & 3.40 \(\pm\) 1.18 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}  
*: presence of significant differences (\(p<0.05\))  
\end{table}
Table 3: _Cont._groups. In seven studies [24, 26, 27, 29, 30, 31, 32], CAL was evaluated at 6 months, and in two of them [26, 30] the results between the two groups were comparable or comparable at baseline.