Effect of Supportive Peri-implant Care After Treatment of Peri- Implant Diseases: A Systematic Review.

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.

种植体周围疾病治疗后种植体周围支持性护理的效果:系统回顾
这项符合 PRISMA 标准的系统性综述旨在研究非手术和手术治疗种植体周围疾病后,种植体周围支持性护理(SPIC)对种植体周围组织健康和疾病复发的影响。本综述的方案已在 PROSPERO(CRD42023468656)上注册。我们进行了文献检索,以根据 PICO 问题:在对成年受试者进行非手术和手术干预治疗种植体周围疾病后,SPIC 对种植体周围组织的稳定性有何影响?研究人员提取了有关 SPIC(方案、频率和依从性)、临床和放射学结果以及其他相关变量的数据,随后对这些数据进行了分类和分析。共纳入了 8 项研究,288 名患者和 512 个种植体曾被诊断为种植体周围炎。没有符合资格标准的研究包括种植体周围粘膜炎。临床和放射学结果与特定的 SPIC 特征无关,两者相似。不过,3个月的召回间隔一般与疾病复发的比例略低有关。最终随访期间(平均 58.7±25.7 个月)无疾病复发的比例介于 23.3% 和 90.3% 之间。然而,如果采用所选研究中报告的最有利的疾病复发定义,基线时疾病复发的平均比例为 28.5%(本调查认为是治疗后 1 年),随访 2 年后增加到 47.2%。总之,无论 SPIC 间隔时间和方案如何,在治疗种植体周围炎后,疾病复发率往往会随着时间的推移而增加,有时还需要额外的干预措施。
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