Surgical regenerative methods for peri-implantitis treatment: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Journal of advanced periodontology & implant dentistry Pub Date : 2024-07-31 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.34172/japid.2024.013
Soheil Shahbazi, Saharnaz Esmaeili, Armin Shirvani, Reza Amid, Mahdi Kadkhodazadeh
{"title":"Surgical regenerative methods for peri-implantitis treatment: A systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Soheil Shahbazi, Saharnaz Esmaeili, Armin Shirvani, Reza Amid, Mahdi Kadkhodazadeh","doi":"10.34172/japid.2024.013","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The purpose of this study was to review the literature on the efficacy of different surgical regenerative methods for peri-implantitis treatment.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A preliminary search was conducted in seven electronic databases. The studies included in the analysis implemented surgical regenerative treatment in at least one study group. Baseline and follow-up values for bleeding on probing (BoP), pocket depth (PD), plaque index (PI), bone level (BL), and bone gain (BG) were extracted. The standardized mean difference (SMD) was calculated using Cohen's d or Hedges' g, and a random-effects-restricted maximum likelihood (REML) method was applied for the meta-analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Fifteen studies were included in the qualitative synthesis. The meta-analysis was performed on six studies comparing regenerative techniques that involved bone grafts with those that did not. The overall effect size for using bone grafts at the one-year follow-up was 0.04 (95% CI: -0.26‒0.35; <i>P</i>=0.78) for BoP, -0.08 (95% CI: -0.42‒0.27; <i>P</i>=0.66) for PD, 0.37 (95% CI: 0.08‒0.65; <i>P</i>=0.01) for PI, -0.44 (95% CI: -0.84 to -0.03; <i>P</i>=0.03) for BL, and 0.16 (95% CI: -0.68‒1.01; <i>P</i>=0.70) for BG.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Various materials have been employed for peri-implant defect filling and coverage. A bone substitute did not significantly improve BoP, PD, and BG values, while PI and BL were significantly ameliorated at one-year follow-up. However, recommending a single unified protocol as the most effective for surgical regenerative treatment of peri-implantitis was not feasible.</p>","PeriodicalId":73584,"journal":{"name":"Journal of advanced periodontology & implant dentistry","volume":"16 2","pages":"144-159"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11699266/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of advanced periodontology & implant dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.34172/japid.2024.013","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The purpose of this study was to review the literature on the efficacy of different surgical regenerative methods for peri-implantitis treatment.

Methods: A preliminary search was conducted in seven electronic databases. The studies included in the analysis implemented surgical regenerative treatment in at least one study group. Baseline and follow-up values for bleeding on probing (BoP), pocket depth (PD), plaque index (PI), bone level (BL), and bone gain (BG) were extracted. The standardized mean difference (SMD) was calculated using Cohen's d or Hedges' g, and a random-effects-restricted maximum likelihood (REML) method was applied for the meta-analysis.

Results: Fifteen studies were included in the qualitative synthesis. The meta-analysis was performed on six studies comparing regenerative techniques that involved bone grafts with those that did not. The overall effect size for using bone grafts at the one-year follow-up was 0.04 (95% CI: -0.26‒0.35; P=0.78) for BoP, -0.08 (95% CI: -0.42‒0.27; P=0.66) for PD, 0.37 (95% CI: 0.08‒0.65; P=0.01) for PI, -0.44 (95% CI: -0.84 to -0.03; P=0.03) for BL, and 0.16 (95% CI: -0.68‒1.01; P=0.70) for BG.

Conclusion: Various materials have been employed for peri-implant defect filling and coverage. A bone substitute did not significantly improve BoP, PD, and BG values, while PI and BL were significantly ameliorated at one-year follow-up. However, recommending a single unified protocol as the most effective for surgical regenerative treatment of peri-implantitis was not feasible.

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
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
20 weeks
期刊最新文献
Deep margin elevation; Indications and periodontal considerations. Effect of orthodontic forced eruption for implant site development in the maxillary esthetic zone: A systematic review of clinical data. Beneficial effects of cranberry juice enriched with omega-3 fatty acids in patients with type 2 diabetic and periodontal disease: A randomized pilot clinical trial. Comparison of the effect of albumin with platelet-rich fibrin (Alb-PRF) gel and hyaluronic acid gel injection on interdental papilla reconstruction: A randomized clinical trial. Effect of atorvastatin gel in non-surgical treatment of peri-implant mucositis: A randomized controlled clinical trial.
×
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