Effect of mechanical debridement with and without adjunct antimicrobial photodynamic therapy for the treatment of peri-implant disease in obese patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

IF 3.1 3区医学 Q2 ONCOLOGY

Photodiagnosis and Photodynamic Therapy Pub Date : 2025-02-01 DOI:10.1016/j.pdpdt.2025.104510

Sultan Albeshri, Raed AlRowis

{"title":"Effect of mechanical debridement with and without adjunct antimicrobial photodynamic therapy for the treatment of peri-implant disease in obese patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials","authors":"Sultan Albeshri, Raed AlRowis","doi":"10.1016/j.pdpdt.2025.104510","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><div>The aim of the present systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the effect of mechanical debridement (MD) with and without adjunct antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) for the treatment of peri‑implant diseases in obese patients.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>The focused question is “Is MD with adjuvant aPDT more effective than MD alone for treating peri‑implant diseases in obese patients?” Indexed databases were searched without time and language barriers up to and including February 2025. Various keywords were used in different combinations using Boolean operators. A forest plot was generated to visually present the results of the meta-analysis. The risk of bias (RoB) within studies was assessed and GRADE analysis was performed.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Three randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included. The number of participants ranged between 49 and 80 individuals. Patients in the test and control groups underwent MD with and without adjunct aPDT, respectively. In two studies, periimplantitis was treated with MD with and without adjunct aPDT, and in one, MD with and without MD was performed to treat peri‑implant mucositis. Follow-up ranged from 3 to 6 months. All RCTs showed that MD+aPDT is more effective in treating peri‑implant diseases than MD alone. The RoB was high and unclear in one and two RCTs, respectively. The meta-analysis showed that control intervention provided a more favorable outcome than experimental intervention. The certainty of evidence was low, and the strength of recommendation was weak in all RCTs.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Role of aPDT as an adjunct to MD for treating peri‑implant diseases in obese populations remains unclear.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":20141,"journal":{"name":"Photodiagnosis and Photodynamic Therapy","volume":"52 ","pages":"Article 104510"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Photodiagnosis and Photodynamic Therapy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1572100025000407","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective

The aim of the present systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the effect of mechanical debridement (MD) with and without adjunct antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) for the treatment of peri‑implant diseases in obese patients.

Methods

The focused question is “Is MD with adjuvant aPDT more effective than MD alone for treating peri‑implant diseases in obese patients?” Indexed databases were searched without time and language barriers up to and including February 2025. Various keywords were used in different combinations using Boolean operators. A forest plot was generated to visually present the results of the meta-analysis. The risk of bias (RoB) within studies was assessed and GRADE analysis was performed.

Results

Three randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included. The number of participants ranged between 49 and 80 individuals. Patients in the test and control groups underwent MD with and without adjunct aPDT, respectively. In two studies, periimplantitis was treated with MD with and without adjunct aPDT, and in one, MD with and without MD was performed to treat peri‑implant mucositis. Follow-up ranged from 3 to 6 months. All RCTs showed that MD+aPDT is more effective in treating peri‑implant diseases than MD alone. The RoB was high and unclear in one and two RCTs, respectively. The meta-analysis showed that control intervention provided a more favorable outcome than experimental intervention. The certainty of evidence was low, and the strength of recommendation was weak in all RCTs.

Conclusion

Role of aPDT as an adjunct to MD for treating peri‑implant diseases in obese populations remains unclear.

查看原文本刊更多论文

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Photodiagnosis and Photodynamic Therapy ONCOLOGY-

CiteScore

5.80

自引率

24.20%

发文量

509

审稿时长

50 days

期刊介绍： Photodiagnosis and Photodynamic Therapy is an international journal for the dissemination of scientific knowledge and clinical developments of Photodiagnosis and Photodynamic Therapy in all medical specialties. The journal publishes original articles, review articles, case presentations, "how-to-do-it" articles, Letters to the Editor, short communications and relevant images with short descriptions. All submitted material is subject to a strict peer-review process.