Does adjunctive phototherapy have better outcomes than adjunctive antibiotic therapy for the management of peri-implantitis?

Q3 Dentistry Evidence-based dentistry Pub Date : 2024-11-13 DOI:10.1038/s41432-024-01082-8
Jacqueline Fraser, Vithurran Vijayenthiran
{"title":"Does adjunctive phototherapy have better outcomes than adjunctive antibiotic therapy for the management of peri-implantitis?","authors":"Jacqueline Fraser, Vithurran Vijayenthiran","doi":"10.1038/s41432-024-01082-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Elsevier’s Scopus, Web of Science and Pubmed through Medline identified 431 articles, which were reduced to 206 when duplicates were removed. 8 articles were screened, and 1 excluded after reading the full-text, leaving 7 studies. 6 of these were randomised controlled trials, and 1 a non-randomised controlled clinical trial. Studies selected were either blinded, double-blinded, split-mouth clinical studies, comparative or controlled clinical studies, or randomised controlled trials in humans. There were no limitations on year of publication or language of studies. Most studies had a control of mechanical debridement (MD) with adjuvant antibiotics; 1 was surgical therapy. The test group was MD with adjuvant phototherapy. Exclusions were in vitro reports, animal studies, treatment with sole laser therapy, treatment with no additional antimicrobial therapy alongside MD. Pre-prints, reviews, abstracts, opinion articles, editorials, case reports and case series were also excluded. Data were extracted electronically by a single author and a senior librarian from the 3 databases. Titles and abstracts of articles were screened by the author if they contained Medical Subject Headings either in free terms or with Boolean operators. Full text studies that met the inclusion criteria were included. Data were also searched manually in 6 journals. For missing or conflicting information, the author of the article was contacted for clarification. Data extracted were country of origin of article, study design, sample size, research groups, diagnostic criteria, frequency of intervention, follow-up visits, and outcome of parameters which included clinically: plaque index (PI), probing depth (PD), bleeding on probing (BOP) and radiographically: crestal bone loss (CBL). Additional data on lasers were also collected, although not all studies had complete data on this. RevMan was used for statistical analysis. Inconsistencies were evaluated using I2 value > 50% and Cochrane’s Q test, with a P value < 0.05 considered. Standard Mean Differences (SMD) were calculated and Confidence Interval was set at 95%. A random effects model was used for each meta-analysis. PI had no statistical difference, with high heterogeneity. PD had no statistical difference, with no heterogeneity. BOP had a statistically significant difference and a high level of heterogeneity, favouring adjunctive phototherapy. MBL had statistically non-significant differences between control and test groups, and no heterogeneity. The findings from the systematic review differed from the meta-analysis, suggesting that application of adjuvant phototherapy was equally as effective as adjunctive antibiotic therapy in outcomes such as PI, PD, BOP and MBL. The meta-analysis found that implants treated with adjuvant phototherapy had superior outcomes in relation to BOP only.","PeriodicalId":12234,"journal":{"name":"Evidence-based dentistry","volume":"25 4","pages":"204-205"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.nature.com/articles/s41432-024-01082-8.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evidence-based dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.nature.com/articles/s41432-024-01082-8","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Dentistry","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Elsevier’s Scopus, Web of Science and Pubmed through Medline identified 431 articles, which were reduced to 206 when duplicates were removed. 8 articles were screened, and 1 excluded after reading the full-text, leaving 7 studies. 6 of these were randomised controlled trials, and 1 a non-randomised controlled clinical trial. Studies selected were either blinded, double-blinded, split-mouth clinical studies, comparative or controlled clinical studies, or randomised controlled trials in humans. There were no limitations on year of publication or language of studies. Most studies had a control of mechanical debridement (MD) with adjuvant antibiotics; 1 was surgical therapy. The test group was MD with adjuvant phototherapy. Exclusions were in vitro reports, animal studies, treatment with sole laser therapy, treatment with no additional antimicrobial therapy alongside MD. Pre-prints, reviews, abstracts, opinion articles, editorials, case reports and case series were also excluded. Data were extracted electronically by a single author and a senior librarian from the 3 databases. Titles and abstracts of articles were screened by the author if they contained Medical Subject Headings either in free terms or with Boolean operators. Full text studies that met the inclusion criteria were included. Data were also searched manually in 6 journals. For missing or conflicting information, the author of the article was contacted for clarification. Data extracted were country of origin of article, study design, sample size, research groups, diagnostic criteria, frequency of intervention, follow-up visits, and outcome of parameters which included clinically: plaque index (PI), probing depth (PD), bleeding on probing (BOP) and radiographically: crestal bone loss (CBL). Additional data on lasers were also collected, although not all studies had complete data on this. RevMan was used for statistical analysis. Inconsistencies were evaluated using I2 value > 50% and Cochrane’s Q test, with a P value < 0.05 considered. Standard Mean Differences (SMD) were calculated and Confidence Interval was set at 95%. A random effects model was used for each meta-analysis. PI had no statistical difference, with high heterogeneity. PD had no statistical difference, with no heterogeneity. BOP had a statistically significant difference and a high level of heterogeneity, favouring adjunctive phototherapy. MBL had statistically non-significant differences between control and test groups, and no heterogeneity. The findings from the systematic review differed from the meta-analysis, suggesting that application of adjuvant phototherapy was equally as effective as adjunctive antibiotic therapy in outcomes such as PI, PD, BOP and MBL. The meta-analysis found that implants treated with adjuvant phototherapy had superior outcomes in relation to BOP only.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在治疗种植体周围炎时,辅助光疗是否比辅助抗生素治疗效果更好?
数据来源Elsevier的Scopus、Web of Science和Pubmed通过Medline检索到431篇文章,去除重复文章后减至206篇。对 8 篇文章进行了筛选,1 篇在阅读全文后被排除,剩下 7 项研究。其中 6 篇为随机对照试验,1 篇为非随机对照临床试验:所选研究均为盲法、双盲法、分口临床研究、对比或对照临床研究,或人体随机对照试验。对研究的发表年份或语言没有限制。大多数研究的对照组是机械清创(MD)和辅助抗生素;其中一项是手术疗法。试验组为机械清创加辅助光疗。不包括体外报告、动物研究、仅使用激光疗法的治疗、在使用 MD 的同时未使用额外抗菌疗法的治疗。还排除了预印本、综述、摘要、观点文章、社论、病例报告和病例系列:数据由一位作者和一位资深图书管理员从 3 个数据库中以电子方式提取。如果文章的标题和摘要中包含医学主题词,则由作者用自由词或布尔运算符对其进行筛选。符合纳入标准的研究报告全文被纳入其中。此外,还人工搜索了 6 种期刊的数据。对于缺失或相互矛盾的信息,会联系文章作者进行澄清。提取的数据包括文章来源国、研究设计、样本大小、研究小组、诊断标准、干预频率、随访和参数结果,其中临床参数包括:牙菌斑指数(PI)、探诊深度(PD)、探诊出血量(BOP);影像学参数包括:骨嵴骨质流失(CBL)。此外,还收集了有关激光的其他数据,但并非所有研究都有这方面的完整数据。RevMan用于统计分析。使用 I2 值>50%和 Cochrane's Q 检验来评估不一致性,并得出 P 值 结果:PI 没有统计学差异,异质性较高。PD无统计学差异,无异质性。BOP 在统计学上有显著差异,异质性较高,倾向于辅助光疗。MBL 在对照组和试验组之间的差异无统计学意义,且无异质性:系统综述的结果与荟萃分析的结果不同,它表明在 PI、PD、BOP 和 MBL 等结果方面,辅助光疗与辅助抗生素治疗同样有效。荟萃分析发现,使用辅助光疗治疗的植入物仅在 BOP 方面具有更好的疗效。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Evidence-based dentistry
Evidence-based dentistry Dentistry-Dentistry (all)
CiteScore
2.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
77
期刊介绍: Evidence-Based Dentistry delivers the best available evidence on the latest developments in oral health. We evaluate the evidence and provide guidance concerning the value of the author''s conclusions. We keep dentistry up to date with new approaches, exploring a wide range of the latest developments through an accessible expert commentary. Original papers and relevant publications are condensed into digestible summaries, drawing attention to the current methods and findings. We are a central resource for the most cutting edge and relevant issues concerning the evidence-based approach in dentistry today. Evidence-Based Dentistry is published by Springer Nature on behalf of the British Dental Association.
期刊最新文献
Do antibiotics prior to dental extractions reduce adverse post-operative outcomes? Comparative evaluation of pit & fissure sealant retention using cotton roll & rubber dam isolation techniques - a systematic review & meta-analysis. Soft and hard tissue changes following immediate implant placement and immediate loading in aesthetic zone-a systematic review and meta-analysis. Effectiveness of photobiomodulation with low-level lasers on the acceleration of orthodontic tooth movement: an umbrella review. Applications of AI-based deep learning models for detecting dental caries on intraoral images - a systematic review.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1