{"title":"思考种植体周围病变的问题。","authors":"Ajay S. Kotecha, Amelia Nadia Karim","doi":"10.1038/s41432-024-01083-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Randomised control trials were identified via searches of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and The Cochrane Library. Only randomised control trials involving adults with at least a single dental implant which had experienced peri-implant mucositis or peri-implantitis were considered. Within studies, one cohort must have been treated with a combination of mechanical debridement (MD) and non-surgical strategies, and the other solely by mechanical debridement. Outcomes were measured using periodontal indices such as bleeding on probing, and each group needed to comprise minimum five patients. Extracted information included the name of the lead author, size of patient groups, length of follow-up and the main results from the studies. The results indicated that in peri-implantitis the most effective treatment in reducing periodontal pocketing depths (PPDs) was photo biomodulation therapy and MD, while systemic antibiotics and MD were the most effective in improving clinical attachment loss and marginal bone loss. With regards to peri-implant mucositis; probiotics and MD yielded the best improvement in PPDs and plaque index, whereas systemic antibiotics with MD improved bleeding on probing the most. This analysis gives potentially useful data regarding specific treatment combinations for peri-implant disease. In light of this, it may help in guiding clinical decisions, but should be used in conjunction with recognised guidelines, and further high quality primary research is still required in the field.","PeriodicalId":12234,"journal":{"name":"Evidence-based dentistry","volume":"25 4","pages":"200-201"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.nature.com/articles/s41432-024-01083-7.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Pondering the problem of peri-implant pathology\",\"authors\":\"Ajay S. Kotecha, Amelia Nadia Karim\",\"doi\":\"10.1038/s41432-024-01083-7\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Randomised control trials were identified via searches of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and The Cochrane Library. Only randomised control trials involving adults with at least a single dental implant which had experienced peri-implant mucositis or peri-implantitis were considered. Within studies, one cohort must have been treated with a combination of mechanical debridement (MD) and non-surgical strategies, and the other solely by mechanical debridement. Outcomes were measured using periodontal indices such as bleeding on probing, and each group needed to comprise minimum five patients. Extracted information included the name of the lead author, size of patient groups, length of follow-up and the main results from the studies. The results indicated that in peri-implantitis the most effective treatment in reducing periodontal pocketing depths (PPDs) was photo biomodulation therapy and MD, while systemic antibiotics and MD were the most effective in improving clinical attachment loss and marginal bone loss. With regards to peri-implant mucositis; probiotics and MD yielded the best improvement in PPDs and plaque index, whereas systemic antibiotics with MD improved bleeding on probing the most. This analysis gives potentially useful data regarding specific treatment combinations for peri-implant disease. In light of this, it may help in guiding clinical decisions, but should be used in conjunction with recognised guidelines, and further high quality primary research is still required in the field.\",\"PeriodicalId\":12234,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Evidence-based dentistry\",\"volume\":\"25 4\",\"pages\":\"200-201\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.nature.com/articles/s41432-024-01083-7.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Evidence-based dentistry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.nature.com/articles/s41432-024-01083-7\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Dentistry\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Evidence-based dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.nature.com/articles/s41432-024-01083-7","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
摘要
数据来源:随机对照试验通过搜索 PubMed、Embase、Web of Science 和 Cochrane 图书馆来确定:只考虑至少有一个种植体的成人,且曾经历过种植体周围粘膜炎或种植体周围炎的随机对照试验。在这些研究中,必须有一组人同时接受了机械清创(MD)和非手术疗法的治疗,另一组人则只接受了机械清创治疗。研究结果采用牙周指数(如探诊出血)进行测量,每组至少包括五名患者:提取的信息包括主要作者姓名、患者组别、随访时间和研究的主要结果:结果表明,对于种植体周围炎,减少牙周袋深度(PPDs)最有效的治疗方法是光生物调节疗法和MD,而全身性抗生素和MD对改善临床附着丧失和边缘骨丧失最有效。在种植体周围粘膜炎方面,益生菌和MD对PPDs和牙菌斑指数的改善效果最好,而全身性抗生素和MD对探诊出血的改善效果最好:这项分析提供了有关种植体周围疾病特定治疗组合的潜在有用数据。有鉴于此,它可能有助于指导临床决策,但应与公认的指南结合使用,该领域仍需进一步开展高质量的基础研究。
Randomised control trials were identified via searches of PubMed, Embase, Web of Science and The Cochrane Library. Only randomised control trials involving adults with at least a single dental implant which had experienced peri-implant mucositis or peri-implantitis were considered. Within studies, one cohort must have been treated with a combination of mechanical debridement (MD) and non-surgical strategies, and the other solely by mechanical debridement. Outcomes were measured using periodontal indices such as bleeding on probing, and each group needed to comprise minimum five patients. Extracted information included the name of the lead author, size of patient groups, length of follow-up and the main results from the studies. The results indicated that in peri-implantitis the most effective treatment in reducing periodontal pocketing depths (PPDs) was photo biomodulation therapy and MD, while systemic antibiotics and MD were the most effective in improving clinical attachment loss and marginal bone loss. With regards to peri-implant mucositis; probiotics and MD yielded the best improvement in PPDs and plaque index, whereas systemic antibiotics with MD improved bleeding on probing the most. This analysis gives potentially useful data regarding specific treatment combinations for peri-implant disease. In light of this, it may help in guiding clinical decisions, but should be used in conjunction with recognised guidelines, and further high quality primary research is still required in the field.
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.