Emilio Couso-Queiruga, Fernando Suárez López Del Amo, Gustavo Avila-Ortiz, Leandro Chambrone, Alberto Monje, Pablo Galindo-Moreno, Carlos Garaicoa-Pazmino
{"title":"Effect of Supportive Peri-implant Care After Treatment of Peri- Implant Diseases: A Systematic Review.","authors":"Emilio Couso-Queiruga, Fernando Suárez López Del Amo, Gustavo Avila-Ortiz, Leandro Chambrone, Alberto Monje, Pablo Galindo-Moreno, Carlos Garaicoa-Pazmino","doi":"10.11607/prd.7217","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This PRISMA-compliant systematic review aimed to investigate the effect of supportive peri- implant care (SPIC) on peri-implant tissue health and disease recurrence following the non surgical and surgical treatment of peri-implant diseases. The protocol of this review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42023468656). A literature search was conducted to identify investigations that fulfilled a set of pre-defined eligibility criteria based on the PICO question: what is the effect of SPIC upon peri-implant tissue stability following non-surgical and surgical interventions for the treatment of peri-implant diseases in adult human subjects? Data on SPIC (protocol, frequency, and compliance), clinical and radiographic outcomes, and other variables of interest were extracted and subsequently categorized and analyzed. A total of 8 studies, with 288 patients and 512 implants previously diagnosed with peri-implantitis were included. No studies including peri-implant mucositis fit the eligibility criteria. Clinical and radiographic outcomes were similar independently of specific SPIC features. Nevertheless, a 3-month recall interval was generally associated with a slightly lower percentage of disease recurrence. The absence of disease recurrence at the final follow-up period (mean of 58.7±25.7 months) ranged between 23.3% and 90.3%. However, when the most favorable definition of disease recurrence reported in the selected studies was used, mean disease recurrence was 28.5% at baseline, considered 1 year after treatment for this investigation, and increased to 47.2% after 2 years of follow-up. In conclusion, regardless of the SPIC interval and protocol, disease recurrence tends to increase over time after the treatment of peri-implantitis, occasionally requiring additional interventions.</p>","PeriodicalId":94231,"journal":{"name":"The International journal of periodontics & restorative dentistry","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The International journal of periodontics & restorative dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.11607/prd.7217","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
This PRISMA-compliant systematic review aimed to investigate the effect of supportive peri- implant care (SPIC) on peri-implant tissue health and disease recurrence following the non surgical and surgical treatment of peri-implant diseases. The protocol of this review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42023468656). A literature search was conducted to identify investigations that fulfilled a set of pre-defined eligibility criteria based on the PICO question: what is the effect of SPIC upon peri-implant tissue stability following non-surgical and surgical interventions for the treatment of peri-implant diseases in adult human subjects? Data on SPIC (protocol, frequency, and compliance), clinical and radiographic outcomes, and other variables of interest were extracted and subsequently categorized and analyzed. A total of 8 studies, with 288 patients and 512 implants previously diagnosed with peri-implantitis were included. No studies including peri-implant mucositis fit the eligibility criteria. Clinical and radiographic outcomes were similar independently of specific SPIC features. Nevertheless, a 3-month recall interval was generally associated with a slightly lower percentage of disease recurrence. The absence of disease recurrence at the final follow-up period (mean of 58.7±25.7 months) ranged between 23.3% and 90.3%. However, when the most favorable definition of disease recurrence reported in the selected studies was used, mean disease recurrence was 28.5% at baseline, considered 1 year after treatment for this investigation, and increased to 47.2% after 2 years of follow-up. In conclusion, regardless of the SPIC interval and protocol, disease recurrence tends to increase over time after the treatment of peri-implantitis, occasionally requiring additional interventions.