Shayan Barootchi, Andrea Ravidà, Lorenzo Tavelli, Hom-Lay Wang
{"title":"种植体周围粘膜炎的非手术治疗:一项系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"Shayan Barootchi, Andrea Ravidà, Lorenzo Tavelli, Hom-Lay Wang","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To assess the effectiveness of different nonsurgical protocols for the treatment of peri-implant mucositis.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>The identification of randomised clinical trials (RCTs) was systematically performed in three databases and supplemented by a thorough manual search of the literature in periodontics/implantology-related journals. Studies investigating the effect of mechanical and/or chemical plaque control agents aimed at preventing the development of peri-implant mucositis were excluded. When comparable trials were found, a meta-analysis was performed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Fourteen studies were included in the systematic review and three in the meta-analysis. None of the selected studies reported a complete resolution of the peri-implant mucositis lesions. A nonsurgical therapy alone showed an average reduction of: 0.57 mm (95% CI [0.30 to 0.83]) in probing pocket depth (PPD); 22.41% (95% CI [12.74 to 32.08]) in bleeding on probing (BOP); 17.28% (95% CI [3.99 to 30.58]) in the plaque index (PI); and 13.41% (95% CI [3.50 to 23.31]) in the bleeding index (BI). The meta-analysis failed to demonstrate significant improvements with the adjunct use of chlorhexidine disinfectant to nonsurgical mechanical debridement for PPD reduction (-0.07 mm; 95% CI [-0.33 to 1.15], P = 0.62), and relative attachment level (RAL) gain (-0.13 mm; 95% CI [-0.6 to 0.35]), P = 0.6).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Conventional nonsurgical mechanical therapy alone may be considered the standard treatment for peri-implant mucositis as there is still a lack of evidence supporting the use of additional chemical/mechanical agents for clinical and/or microbiological improvement.</p>","PeriodicalId":73463,"journal":{"name":"International journal of oral implantology (Berlin, Germany)","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Nonsurgical treatment for peri-implant mucositis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Shayan Barootchi, Andrea Ravidà, Lorenzo Tavelli, Hom-Lay Wang\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To assess the effectiveness of different nonsurgical protocols for the treatment of peri-implant mucositis.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>The identification of randomised clinical trials (RCTs) was systematically performed in three databases and supplemented by a thorough manual search of the literature in periodontics/implantology-related journals. Studies investigating the effect of mechanical and/or chemical plaque control agents aimed at preventing the development of peri-implant mucositis were excluded. When comparable trials were found, a meta-analysis was performed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Fourteen studies were included in the systematic review and three in the meta-analysis. None of the selected studies reported a complete resolution of the peri-implant mucositis lesions. A nonsurgical therapy alone showed an average reduction of: 0.57 mm (95% CI [0.30 to 0.83]) in probing pocket depth (PPD); 22.41% (95% CI [12.74 to 32.08]) in bleeding on probing (BOP); 17.28% (95% CI [3.99 to 30.58]) in the plaque index (PI); and 13.41% (95% CI [3.50 to 23.31]) in the bleeding index (BI). The meta-analysis failed to demonstrate significant improvements with the adjunct use of chlorhexidine disinfectant to nonsurgical mechanical debridement for PPD reduction (-0.07 mm; 95% CI [-0.33 to 1.15], P = 0.62), and relative attachment level (RAL) gain (-0.13 mm; 95% CI [-0.6 to 0.35]), P = 0.6).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Conventional nonsurgical mechanical therapy alone may be considered the standard treatment for peri-implant mucositis as there is still a lack of evidence supporting the use of additional chemical/mechanical agents for clinical and/or microbiological improvement.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":73463,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International journal of oral implantology (Berlin, Germany)\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International journal of oral implantology (Berlin, Germany)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International journal of oral implantology (Berlin, Germany)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的:评价不同非手术治疗种植体周围黏膜炎的效果。材料和方法:在三个数据库中系统地进行随机临床试验(rct)的鉴定,并通过对牙周病/种植相关期刊的文献进行彻底的人工检索来补充。排除了旨在预防种植体周围粘膜炎发展的机械和/或化学斑块控制剂的研究。当发现可比较的试验时,进行荟萃分析。结果:系统评价纳入14项研究,荟萃分析纳入3项研究。所选的研究中没有一项报告完全解决了种植体周围粘膜炎病变。单独的非手术治疗显示探测袋深度(PPD)平均减少0.57 mm (95% CI[0.30至0.83]);探查出血(BOP)占22.41% (95% CI [12.74 ~ 32.08]);斑块指数(PI)为17.28% (95% CI [3.99 ~ 30.58]);出血指数(BI)为13.41% (95% CI[3.50 ~ 23.31])。meta分析未能证明在非手术机械清创中辅助使用氯己定消毒剂对PPD减少有显著改善(-0.07 mm;95% CI[-0.33至1.15],P = 0.62),相对附着水平(RAL)增益(-0.13 mm;95% CI [-0.6 ~ 0.35]), P = 0.6)。结论:常规的非手术机械治疗可以被认为是种植体周围粘膜炎的标准治疗方法,因为仍然缺乏证据支持使用额外的化学/机械药物来改善临床和/或微生物学。
Nonsurgical treatment for peri-implant mucositis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Purpose: To assess the effectiveness of different nonsurgical protocols for the treatment of peri-implant mucositis.
Materials and methods: The identification of randomised clinical trials (RCTs) was systematically performed in three databases and supplemented by a thorough manual search of the literature in periodontics/implantology-related journals. Studies investigating the effect of mechanical and/or chemical plaque control agents aimed at preventing the development of peri-implant mucositis were excluded. When comparable trials were found, a meta-analysis was performed.
Results: Fourteen studies were included in the systematic review and three in the meta-analysis. None of the selected studies reported a complete resolution of the peri-implant mucositis lesions. A nonsurgical therapy alone showed an average reduction of: 0.57 mm (95% CI [0.30 to 0.83]) in probing pocket depth (PPD); 22.41% (95% CI [12.74 to 32.08]) in bleeding on probing (BOP); 17.28% (95% CI [3.99 to 30.58]) in the plaque index (PI); and 13.41% (95% CI [3.50 to 23.31]) in the bleeding index (BI). The meta-analysis failed to demonstrate significant improvements with the adjunct use of chlorhexidine disinfectant to nonsurgical mechanical debridement for PPD reduction (-0.07 mm; 95% CI [-0.33 to 1.15], P = 0.62), and relative attachment level (RAL) gain (-0.13 mm; 95% CI [-0.6 to 0.35]), P = 0.6).
Conclusion: Conventional nonsurgical mechanical therapy alone may be considered the standard treatment for peri-implant mucositis as there is still a lack of evidence supporting the use of additional chemical/mechanical agents for clinical and/or microbiological improvement.