Clinical Outcomes of Using Lasers for Peri-Implantitis Surface Detoxification: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

IF 3.8 2区 医学 Q1 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE Journal of periodontology Pub Date : 2014-09-01 DOI:10.1902/jop.2014.130620
James Mailoa, Guo-Hao Lin, Hsun-Liang Chan, Mark MacEachern, Hom-Lay Wang
{"title":"Clinical Outcomes of Using Lasers for Peri-Implantitis Surface Detoxification: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis","authors":"James Mailoa,&nbsp;Guo-Hao Lin,&nbsp;Hsun-Liang Chan,&nbsp;Mark MacEachern,&nbsp;Hom-Lay Wang","doi":"10.1902/jop.2014.130620","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The aim of this systematic review is to compare the clinical outcomes of lasers with other commonly applied detoxification methods for treating peri-implantitis. An electronic search of four databases and a hand search of peer-reviewed journals for relevant articles were conducted. Comparative human clinical trials and case series with ≥6 months of follow-up in ≥10 patients with peri-implantitis treated with lasers were included. Additionally, animal studies applying lasers for treating peri-implantitis were also included. The included studies had to report probing depth (PD) reduction after the therapy.</p><p><b>Results:</b> Seven human prospective clinical trials and two animal studies were included. In four and three human studies, lasers were accompanied with surgical and non-surgical treatments, respectively. The meta-analyses showed an overall weighted mean difference of 0.00 mm (95% confidence interval = −0.18 to 0.19 mm) PD reduction between the laser and conventional treatment groups (<i>P</i> = 0.98) for non-surgical intervention. In animal studies, laser-treated rough-surface implants had a higher percentage of bone-to-implant contact than smooth-surface implants. In a short-term follow-up, lasers resulted in similar PD reduction when compared with conventional implant surface decontamination methods.</p>","PeriodicalId":16716,"journal":{"name":"Journal of periodontology","volume":"85 9","pages":"1194-1202"},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2014-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1902/jop.2014.130620","citationCount":"55","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of periodontology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1902/jop.2014.130620","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 55

Abstract

The aim of this systematic review is to compare the clinical outcomes of lasers with other commonly applied detoxification methods for treating peri-implantitis. An electronic search of four databases and a hand search of peer-reviewed journals for relevant articles were conducted. Comparative human clinical trials and case series with ≥6 months of follow-up in ≥10 patients with peri-implantitis treated with lasers were included. Additionally, animal studies applying lasers for treating peri-implantitis were also included. The included studies had to report probing depth (PD) reduction after the therapy.

Results: Seven human prospective clinical trials and two animal studies were included. In four and three human studies, lasers were accompanied with surgical and non-surgical treatments, respectively. The meta-analyses showed an overall weighted mean difference of 0.00 mm (95% confidence interval = −0.18 to 0.19 mm) PD reduction between the laser and conventional treatment groups (P = 0.98) for non-surgical intervention. In animal studies, laser-treated rough-surface implants had a higher percentage of bone-to-implant contact than smooth-surface implants. In a short-term follow-up, lasers resulted in similar PD reduction when compared with conventional implant surface decontamination methods.

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
激光治疗种植体周围表面解毒的临床效果:系统回顾和荟萃分析
本系统综述的目的是比较激光与其他常用解毒方法治疗种植体周围炎的临床结果。对四个数据库进行了电子检索,并对同行评审期刊进行了手工检索,以获取相关文章。我们纳入了10例激光治疗的种植体周围炎患者的比较人体临床试验和随访≥6个月的病例系列。此外,应用激光治疗种植体周围炎的动物研究也包括在内。纳入的研究必须报告治疗后探查深度(PD)减少。结果:纳入了7项人类前瞻性临床试验和2项动物研究。在四项和三项人体研究中,激光分别伴随着手术和非手术治疗。荟萃分析显示,在非手术干预下,激光治疗组与常规治疗组PD降低的总体加权平均差异为0.00 mm(95%可信区间= - 0.18至0.19 mm) (P = 0.98)。在动物实验中,激光处理的粗糙表面植入物比光滑表面植入物具有更高的骨与植入物接触百分比。在短期随访中,与传统的种植体表面去污方法相比,激光的PD降低效果相似。
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
Journal of periodontology
Journal of periodontology 医学-牙科与口腔外科
CiteScore
9.10
自引率
7.00%
发文量
290
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Periodontology publishes articles relevant to the science and practice of periodontics and related areas.
期刊最新文献
The impact of periodontal therapy on clinical and inflammatory parameters in type II diabetics Diagnostic modulation of subgingival proteomic biomarkers by age and smoking habits in periodontitis Salivary galectin‐7, galectin‐10, and MMP‐9 levels in periodontally healthy, gingivitis, and periodontitis patients Periodontal regeneration with enamel matrix derivative and decortication: A retrospective analysis of one year clinical and radiographic outcomes Periodontitis severity and its social and clinical determinants: An ACES framework‐based NHANES analysis
×
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:604180095
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