Clinical efficacy of adjunctive methods for the non-surgical treatment of peri-implantitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: The aim of this systematic review (SR) was to evaluate the clinical efficacy of different adjunctive methods/therapies to the non-surgical treatment (NST) of peri-implantitis. Materials and methods: The protocol of the review was registered in PROSPERO database (CRD42022339709) and was d...

Full description

Autores:
Barbato, Luigi
Cavalcanti, Raffaele
Rupe, Cosimo
Scartabelli, Daniele
Serni, Lapo
Chambrone, Leandro
Cairo, Francesco
Tipo de recurso:
Article of journal
Fecha de publicación:
2023
Institución:
Universidad El Bosque
Repositorio:
Repositorio U. El Bosque
Idioma:
eng
OAI Identifier:
oai:repositorio.unbosque.edu.co:20.500.12495/11158
Acceso en línea:
http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12495/11158
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-023-03058-z
Palabra clave:
Periimplantitis
Tratamiento no quirúrgico
Desbridamiento periimplantario
Métodos complementarios
Antibióticos sistémicos
Instrumentación submarginal
Peri-implantitis
Non-surgical treatment
Peri-implant debridement
Adjunctive methods
Systemic antibiotics
Submarginal instrumentation
Rights
openAccess
License
Atribución 4.0 Internacional
Description
Summary:Background: The aim of this systematic review (SR) was to evaluate the clinical efficacy of different adjunctive methods/therapies to the non-surgical treatment (NST) of peri-implantitis. Materials and methods: The protocol of the review was registered in PROSPERO database (CRD42022339709) and was designed according to PRISMA statement. Electronic and hand searches were performed to identify randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing non-surgical treatment of peri-implantitis alone versus NST plus any adjunctive method/treatment. The primary outcome was probing pocket depth (PPD) reduction. Results: Sixteen RCTs were included. Only 2 out of 1189 implants were lost and follow-up ranged from 3 to 12 months. PPD reduction across the studies varied from 0.17 to 3.1 mm, while defect resolution from 5.3% to 57.1%. Systemic antimicrobials were associated to higher PPD reduction (1.56 mm; [95% CI 0.24 to 2.89]; p = 0.02) with high heterogeneity, and treatment success (OR = 3.23; [95% CI 1.17 to 8.94]; p = 0.02), compared to NST alone. No differences were found with adjunctive local antimicrobials and lasers for PPD and bleeding on probing (BoP) reduction. Conclusions: Non-surgical treatment with or without adjunctive methods may reduce PPD and BoP even if complete resolution of the pocket is unpredictable. Among possible adjunctive methods, only systemic antibiotics seems to provide further benefits, but their usage should be considered with caution.