Implant failure and clinical and radiographic outcomes after surgical treatment of peri-implantitis: A meta-analysis.

Alex Solderer, Lucrezia Paterno Holtzman, Lva Milinkovic, João Pitta, Chiara Malpassi, Daniel Wiedemeier, Luca Cordaro
{"title":"Implant failure and clinical and radiographic outcomes after surgical treatment of peri-implantitis: A meta-analysis.","authors":"Alex Solderer, Lucrezia Paterno Holtzman, Lva Milinkovic, João Pitta, Chiara Malpassi, Daniel Wiedemeier, Luca Cordaro","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To assess the implant failure rate and clinical and radiographic outcomes of implants affected by peri-implantitis that received surgical treatment.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A systematic search was conducted of three databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify studies that examined implant failure and biological outcomes after surgical peri-implantitis treatment, including ≥ 10 patients and reporting on a follow-up period of at least 12 months. Data and risk of bias were assessed qualitatively and quantitively. Surgical modalities were subdivided into reconstructive, non-reconstructive and combined. Meta-analyses were performed for implant failure, marginal bone level and probing pocket depth at 12 and 36 months with the respective subset of available data for each time and endpoint.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 45 studies with 3,463 treated implants were included in the quantitative evaluation. Meta-analyses revealed low implant failure rates of 1.2% (95% confidence interval 0.4%, -2.1%) and 4.2% (95% confidence interval 1.0%, -8.8%) at 12 and 36 months, respectively. No significant difference between the subgroups was observed at 12 months. At 36 months, reconstructive modalities showed a significantly lower implant failure rate (1.0%; 95% confidence interval 0.0%, 5.0%; P = 0.04, χ2(1) = 4.1) compared to non-reconstructive modalities (8.0%; 95% confidence interval 2.0%, 18.0%). The mean probing pocket depth was 3.71 mm (95% confidence interval 3.48, 3.94 mm) at 12 months and 3.63 mm (95% confidence interval 3.02, 4.24 mm) at 36 months. The mean marginal bone loss was 3.31 mm (95% confidence interval 2.89, 3.74 mm) at 12 months and 2.38 mm (95% confidence interval 1.01, 3.74 mm) at 36 months. No significant differences between the modalities were observed for bleeding on probing after either of these time points. Cumulative interventions during supportive therapy were reported in 9% of the studies.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Surgical treatment of peri-implantitis results in a low implant failure rate in the short and medium term. No differences were noted between the different interventions with regard to failure rate. Surrogate therapeutic endpoints were improved after treatment, without significant differences between the different modalities. Therapeutic success and/or disease resolution and cumulative interventions during supportive therapy are seldom reported in the literature, but limited long-term outcomes are documented consistently.</p>","PeriodicalId":73463,"journal":{"name":"International journal of oral implantology (Berlin, Germany)","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-19","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}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: To assess the implant failure rate and clinical and radiographic outcomes of implants affected by peri-implantitis that received surgical treatment.

Materials and methods: A systematic search was conducted of three databases (PubMed, Embase and Cochrane Library) to identify studies that examined implant failure and biological outcomes after surgical peri-implantitis treatment, including ≥ 10 patients and reporting on a follow-up period of at least 12 months. Data and risk of bias were assessed qualitatively and quantitively. Surgical modalities were subdivided into reconstructive, non-reconstructive and combined. Meta-analyses were performed for implant failure, marginal bone level and probing pocket depth at 12 and 36 months with the respective subset of available data for each time and endpoint.

Results: A total of 45 studies with 3,463 treated implants were included in the quantitative evaluation. Meta-analyses revealed low implant failure rates of 1.2% (95% confidence interval 0.4%, -2.1%) and 4.2% (95% confidence interval 1.0%, -8.8%) at 12 and 36 months, respectively. No significant difference between the subgroups was observed at 12 months. At 36 months, reconstructive modalities showed a significantly lower implant failure rate (1.0%; 95% confidence interval 0.0%, 5.0%; P = 0.04, χ2(1) = 4.1) compared to non-reconstructive modalities (8.0%; 95% confidence interval 2.0%, 18.0%). The mean probing pocket depth was 3.71 mm (95% confidence interval 3.48, 3.94 mm) at 12 months and 3.63 mm (95% confidence interval 3.02, 4.24 mm) at 36 months. The mean marginal bone loss was 3.31 mm (95% confidence interval 2.89, 3.74 mm) at 12 months and 2.38 mm (95% confidence interval 1.01, 3.74 mm) at 36 months. No significant differences between the modalities were observed for bleeding on probing after either of these time points. Cumulative interventions during supportive therapy were reported in 9% of the studies.

Conclusion: Surgical treatment of peri-implantitis results in a low implant failure rate in the short and medium term. No differences were noted between the different interventions with regard to failure rate. Surrogate therapeutic endpoints were improved after treatment, without significant differences between the different modalities. Therapeutic success and/or disease resolution and cumulative interventions during supportive therapy are seldom reported in the literature, but limited long-term outcomes are documented consistently.

手术治疗种植体周围炎后的种植失败以及临床和放射学结果:荟萃分析。
目的:评估受种植体周围炎影响并接受手术治疗的种植体的失败率以及临床和放射学结果:对三个数据库(PubMed、Embase 和 Cochrane Library)进行了系统性检索,以确定对种植体周围炎手术治疗后的种植体失败率和生物学结果进行研究的结果,这些研究包括≥ 10 名患者,并报告了至少 12 个月的随访期。对数据和偏倚风险进行了定性和定量评估。手术方式细分为重建、非重建和综合三种。根据每个时间和终点的可用数据子集,对种植失败、12个月和36个月的边缘骨水平和探诊袋深度进行了元分析:结果:共有 45 项研究、3,463 个经过治疗的种植体被纳入定量评估。元分析显示,12 个月和 36 个月的种植失败率分别为 1.2%(95% 置信区间为 0.4%,-2.1%)和 4.2%(95% 置信区间为 1.0%,-8.8%)。在 12 个月时,亚组之间未观察到明显差异。36 个月时,重建方式的种植失败率(1.0%;95% 置信区间 0.0%,5.0%;P = 0.04,χ2(1) = 4.1)明显低于非重建方式(8.0%;95% 置信区间 2.0%,18.0%)。12 个月时的平均探查袋深度为 3.71 毫米(95% 置信区间为 3.48 - 3.94 毫米),36 个月时的平均探查袋深度为 3.63 毫米(95% 置信区间为 3.02 - 4.24 毫米)。12 个月时的平均边缘骨损失为 3.31 毫米(95% 置信区间为 2.89 - 3.74 毫米),36 个月时为 2.38 毫米(95% 置信区间为 1.01 - 3.74 毫米)。在这两个时间点之后,探诊出血量在不同方式之间没有明显差异。9%的研究报告了支持治疗期间的累积干预:结论:手术治疗种植体周围炎的中短期失败率较低。结论:在中短期内,外科手术治疗种植体周围炎的失败率较低,不同的干预措施在失败率方面没有差异。替代治疗终点在治疗后有所改善,但不同方式之间无明显差异。文献中很少有治疗成功和/或疾病缓解以及支持治疗期间累积干预的报道,但长期疗效有限,且有持续记录。
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 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信