Dataset Information

Clinical efficacy of adjunctive methods for the non-surgical treatment of peri-implantitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The aim of this systematic review (SR) was to evaluate the clinical efficacy of different adjunctive methods/therapies to the non-surgical treatment (NST) of peri-implantitis.

Materials and methods

The protocol of the review was registered in PROSPERO database (CRD42022339709) and was designed according to PRISMA statement. Electronic and hand searches were performed to identify randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing non-surgical treatment of peri-implantitis alone versus NST plus any adjunctive method/treatment. The primary outcome was probing pocket depth (PPD) reduction.

Results

Sixteen RCTs were included. Only 2 out of 1189 implants were lost and follow-up ranged from 3 to 12 months. PPD reduction across the studies varied from 0.17 to 3.1 mm, while defect resolution from 5.3% to 57.1%. Systemic antimicrobials were associated to higher PPD reduction (1.56 mm; [95% CI 0.24 to 2.89]; p = 0.02) with high heterogeneity, and treatment success (OR = 3.23; [95% CI 1.17 to 8.94]; p = 0.02), compared to NST alone. No differences were found with adjunctive local antimicrobials and lasers for PPD and bleeding on probing (BoP) reduction.

Conclusions

Non-surgical treatment with or without adjunctive methods may reduce PPD and BoP even if complete resolution of the pocket is unpredictable. Among possible adjunctive methods, only systemic antibiotics seems to provide further benefits, but their usage should be considered with caution.

SUBMITTER: Barbato L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10251565 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Clinical efficacy of adjunctive methods for the non-surgical treatment of peri-implantitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Barbato Luigi L Cavalcanti Raffaele R Rupe Cosimo C Scartabelli Daniele D Serni Lapo L Chambrone Leandro L Cairo Francesco F

BMC oral health 20230609 1

<h4>Background</h4>The aim of this systematic review (SR) was to evaluate the clinical efficacy of different adjunctive methods/therapies to the non-surgical treatment (NST) of peri-implantitis.<h4>Materials and methods</h4>The protocol of the review was registered in PROSPERO database (CRD42022339709) and was designed according to PRISMA statement. Electronic and hand searches were performed to identify randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing non-surgical treatment of peri-implantitis alone ...[more]

PMID: 37296382

Similar Datasets

Project description:This network meta-analysis aims to compare the clinical efficacy of seven non-surgical therapies for peri-implant disease, including laser treatment, photobiomodulation therapy (PBMT), photodynamic therapy (PDT), systemic antibiotics (SA), probiotics, local antimicrobials (LA), and air-powder polishing (APP) combined with mechanical debridement (MD). We conducted searches in four electronic databases, namely PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and The Cochrane Library, to identify randomized controlled trials of non-surgical treatments combined with MD for individuals (aged at least 18 years) diagnosed with peri-implantitis or peri-implant mucositis with a minimum of 3 months follow-up. The outcomes of the study were the reduction in pocket probing depth (PPD) and bleeding on probing (BoP), plaque index (PLI), clinical attachment level (CAL), and marginal bone loss (MBL). We employed a frequency random effects network meta-analysis model to combine the effect sizes of the trials using standardized mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Network meta-analyses include network plots, paired comparison forest plots, league tables, funnel plots, surface under the cumulative ranking area (SUCRA) plots, and sensitivity analysis plots. The results showed that, for peri-implantitis, PBMT +MD demonstrated the highest effect in improving PPD (SUCRA = 75.3%), SA +MD showed the highest effect in improving CAL (SUCRA = 87.4%, SMD = 2.20, and 95% CI: 0.38 to 4.02) and MBL (SUCRA = 99.9%, SMD = 3.92, and 95% CI. 2.90 to 4.93), compared to MD alone. For peri-implant mucositis, probiotics +MD demonstrated the highest effect in improving PPD (SUCRA = 100%) and PLI (SUCRA = 83.2%), SA +MD showed the highest effect in improving BoP (SUCRA = 88.1%, SMD = 0.77, and 95% CI: 0.27 to 1.28), compared to MD alone. Despite the ranking established by our study in the treatment of peri-implant disease, decisions should still be made with reference to the latest treatment guidelines. There is still a need for more high-quality studies to provide conclusive evidence and especially a need for studies regarding direct comparisons between multiple treatment options.

Project description:BackgroundMicrobial biofilm accumulation is the main cause of peri-implantitis. The majority of surgical peri-implantitis treatment protocols suggests adjunctive use of systemic antibiotics to target specific putative bacteria. The aim of this systematic review was to critically evaluate the adjunctive use of systemically administered antibiotics in surgical treatment of peri-implantitis by reviewing previously published systematic reviews and primary studies.MethodsA systematic literature search was conducted in four electronic databases (MEDLINE, The Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and Web of Science) for randomised controlled trials, cohort studies, case-control studies, and systematic reviews reporting surgical treatment of peri-implantitis with and without adjunctive systemically administered antibiotic therapy. The included systematic reviews and primary studies were qualitatively assessed using AMSTAR and GRADE, respectively. No restrictions were set for date of publication, journal, or language.ResultsThe literature search identified 681 papers. Only seven systematic reviews and two primary studies met the inclusion criteria. Four out of seven included systematic reviews concluded that no evidence exists for use of systemic antibiotics to improve the clinical outcomes in surgical treatment of peri-implantitis. One review did not estimate the level of evidence, one did not clearly state any beneficial effect, whereas one reported a limited adjunctive effect. Further, the two included primary studies did not show a long-term significant benefit of adjunctive use of systemically administrated antibiotics. However, one study reported a short-term adjunctive effect in patients with modified surface implants. Due to heterogeneity in study design, low number of included primary studies, and grade of bias, no meta-analysis was performed.ConclusionThe use of systemically administered antibiotics as an adjunct to surgical interventions of peri-implantitis cannot be justified as a part of a standard treatment protocol. A pervasive problem is the lack of uniform diagnosis criteria for peri-implantitis, deficient information about patient characteristics, absence of high quality long-term randomised controlled trials, and authors' declaration on conflict of interest.

Dataset Information

Clinical efficacy of adjunctive methods for the non-surgical treatment of peri-implantitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Background

Materials and methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Clinical efficacy of adjunctive methods for the non-surgical treatment of peri-implantitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets