{"title":"Surgical regenerative methods for peri-implantitis treatment: A systematic review and meta-analysis.","authors":"Soheil Shahbazi, Saharnaz Esmaeili, Armin Shirvani, Reza Amid, Mahdi Kadkhodazadeh","doi":"10.34172/japid.2024.013","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The purpose of this study was to review the literature on the efficacy of different surgical regenerative methods for peri-implantitis treatment.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A preliminary search was conducted in seven electronic databases. The studies included in the analysis implemented surgical regenerative treatment in at least one study group. Baseline and follow-up values for bleeding on probing (BoP), pocket depth (PD), plaque index (PI), bone level (BL), and bone gain (BG) were extracted. The standardized mean difference (SMD) was calculated using Cohen's d or Hedges' g, and a random-effects-restricted maximum likelihood (REML) method was applied for the meta-analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Fifteen studies were included in the qualitative synthesis. The meta-analysis was performed on six studies comparing regenerative techniques that involved bone grafts with those that did not. The overall effect size for using bone grafts at the one-year follow-up was 0.04 (95% CI: -0.26‒0.35; <i>P</i>=0.78) for BoP, -0.08 (95% CI: -0.42‒0.27; <i>P</i>=0.66) for PD, 0.37 (95% CI: 0.08‒0.65; <i>P</i>=0.01) for PI, -0.44 (95% CI: -0.84 to -0.03; <i>P</i>=0.03) for BL, and 0.16 (95% CI: -0.68‒1.01; <i>P</i>=0.70) for BG.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Various materials have been employed for peri-implant defect filling and coverage. A bone substitute did not significantly improve BoP, PD, and BG values, while PI and BL were significantly ameliorated at one-year follow-up. However, recommending a single unified protocol as the most effective for surgical regenerative treatment of peri-implantitis was not feasible.</p>","PeriodicalId":73584,"journal":{"name":"Journal of advanced periodontology & implant dentistry","volume":"16 2","pages":"144-159"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11699266/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of advanced periodontology & implant dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.34172/japid.2024.013","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: The purpose of this study was to review the literature on the efficacy of different surgical regenerative methods for peri-implantitis treatment.
Methods: A preliminary search was conducted in seven electronic databases. The studies included in the analysis implemented surgical regenerative treatment in at least one study group. Baseline and follow-up values for bleeding on probing (BoP), pocket depth (PD), plaque index (PI), bone level (BL), and bone gain (BG) were extracted. The standardized mean difference (SMD) was calculated using Cohen's d or Hedges' g, and a random-effects-restricted maximum likelihood (REML) method was applied for the meta-analysis.
Results: Fifteen studies were included in the qualitative synthesis. The meta-analysis was performed on six studies comparing regenerative techniques that involved bone grafts with those that did not. The overall effect size for using bone grafts at the one-year follow-up was 0.04 (95% CI: -0.26‒0.35; P=0.78) for BoP, -0.08 (95% CI: -0.42‒0.27; P=0.66) for PD, 0.37 (95% CI: 0.08‒0.65; P=0.01) for PI, -0.44 (95% CI: -0.84 to -0.03; P=0.03) for BL, and 0.16 (95% CI: -0.68‒1.01; P=0.70) for BG.
Conclusion: Various materials have been employed for peri-implant defect filling and coverage. A bone substitute did not significantly improve BoP, PD, and BG values, while PI and BL were significantly ameliorated at one-year follow-up. However, recommending a single unified protocol as the most effective for surgical regenerative treatment of peri-implantitis was not feasible.