Surgical Reconstructive Therapy for the Management of Peri-implantitis: An AAP/AO Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis.

Shayan Barootchi, Alberto Monje, Hamoun Sabri, Paul S Rosen, Hom-Lay Wang
{"title":"Surgical Reconstructive Therapy for the Management of Peri-implantitis: An AAP/AO Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis.","authors":"Shayan Barootchi, Alberto Monje, Hamoun Sabri, Paul S Rosen, Hom-Lay Wang","doi":"10.11607/jomi.2025suppl1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Reports on the occurrence of peri-implant diseases date back nearly two decades. Despite the attempts taken toward the management of this disease, the literature still lacks a common remedy for predictable treatment. This best evidence consensus review was conducted in preparation for the joint consensus between the American Academy of Periodontology (AAP) and the Academy of Osseointegration (AO) to systematically analyze the clinical research in the field of surgical reconstructive therapy for peri-implantitis.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A detailed systematic search was conducted to identify eligible clinical research reporting the outcomes of surgical reconstructive therapy for periimplantitis. The retrieved nonrandomized studies were analyzed descriptively, while the data from randomized control trials (RCTs) were fit to a series of mixed models that analyzed the individual components of the study arms and rendered treatments for the outcomes of probing pocket depth (PPD) reduction, radiographic marginal bone level (Rx MBL) gain, reduction in bleeding on probing (BoP) and suppuration (SUP), as well as mucosal recession (MREC).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 18 reports on RCTs were eligible for quantitative assessment (635 patients, 687 implants). The results indicated that surgical reconstructive approaches for peri-implantitis (based on 319 patients and 345 implants), when compared to a nonreconstructive treatment modality (ie, open flap debridement alone based on 316 patients and 342 implants), was effective in reducing PPD, minimizing MREC, as well as increasing Rx MBL gain. However, there was no additional benefit from employing a reconstructive approach regarding the outcomes of BoP and SUP reduction. Several other baseline covariates such as site (initial PPD, MBL, and BoP) and systemic factors (eg, smoking) were also found to significantly impact the therapeutic outcomes. Mechanical decontamination methods as well as individual components of the augmentation approach were also found to significantly affect the outcomes.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Within the limitations of this study, it was demonstrated that the surgical treatment of infrabony peri-implantitis defects can lead to PPD reduction, MREC reduction, and Rx MBL gain and was found to be superior to nonreconstructive treatment. However, there were no significant differences between the two modalities of therapy for the outcomes of BoP and SUP. Reconstructive therapy may provide a suitable approach for managing peri-implantitis-related infrabony defects.</p>","PeriodicalId":94230,"journal":{"name":"The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants","volume":" 4","pages":"1-48"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.11607/jomi.2025suppl1","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: Reports on the occurrence of peri-implant diseases date back nearly two decades. Despite the attempts taken toward the management of this disease, the literature still lacks a common remedy for predictable treatment. This best evidence consensus review was conducted in preparation for the joint consensus between the American Academy of Periodontology (AAP) and the Academy of Osseointegration (AO) to systematically analyze the clinical research in the field of surgical reconstructive therapy for peri-implantitis.

Materials and methods: A detailed systematic search was conducted to identify eligible clinical research reporting the outcomes of surgical reconstructive therapy for periimplantitis. The retrieved nonrandomized studies were analyzed descriptively, while the data from randomized control trials (RCTs) were fit to a series of mixed models that analyzed the individual components of the study arms and rendered treatments for the outcomes of probing pocket depth (PPD) reduction, radiographic marginal bone level (Rx MBL) gain, reduction in bleeding on probing (BoP) and suppuration (SUP), as well as mucosal recession (MREC).

Results: A total of 18 reports on RCTs were eligible for quantitative assessment (635 patients, 687 implants). The results indicated that surgical reconstructive approaches for peri-implantitis (based on 319 patients and 345 implants), when compared to a nonreconstructive treatment modality (ie, open flap debridement alone based on 316 patients and 342 implants), was effective in reducing PPD, minimizing MREC, as well as increasing Rx MBL gain. However, there was no additional benefit from employing a reconstructive approach regarding the outcomes of BoP and SUP reduction. Several other baseline covariates such as site (initial PPD, MBL, and BoP) and systemic factors (eg, smoking) were also found to significantly impact the therapeutic outcomes. Mechanical decontamination methods as well as individual components of the augmentation approach were also found to significantly affect the outcomes.

Conclusions: Within the limitations of this study, it was demonstrated that the surgical treatment of infrabony peri-implantitis defects can lead to PPD reduction, MREC reduction, and Rx MBL gain and was found to be superior to nonreconstructive treatment. However, there were no significant differences between the two modalities of therapy for the outcomes of BoP and SUP. Reconstructive therapy may provide a suitable approach for managing peri-implantitis-related infrabony defects.

手术重建治疗种植体周围炎:AAP/AO系统综述和网络荟萃分析。
目的:关于种植体周围疾病的报道可以追溯到近20年前。尽管对这种疾病的管理进行了尝试,但文献中仍然缺乏一种可预测的治疗方法。本最佳证据共识综述是为准备美国牙周病学会(AAP)和骨整合学会(AO)联合共识,系统分析种植周炎手术重建治疗领域的临床研究而进行的。材料和方法:进行了详细的系统搜索,以确定符合条件的临床研究报告手术重建治疗种植周炎的结果。对检索到的非随机研究进行描述性分析,而随机对照试验(rct)的数据则适合于一系列混合模型,这些模型分析了研究组的各个组成部分,并给出了探测袋深度(PPD)降低、放射学边缘骨水平(Rx MBL)增加、探测出血(BoP)和化脓(SUP)减少以及粘膜萎缩(MREC)的治疗结果。结果:共有18篇rct报告(635例患者,687颗种植体)符合定量评估标准。结果表明,与非重建治疗方式(即单独开放皮瓣清创,316例患者和342例种植体)相比,手术重建治疗种植体周围炎(319例患者和345例种植体)在减少PPD,最小化MREC以及增加Rx MBL增加方面有效。然而,对于BoP和SUP降低的结果,采用重建方法并没有额外的好处。其他几个基线协变量,如部位(初始PPD、MBL和BoP)和全身因素(如吸烟)也被发现对治疗结果有显著影响。机械去污方法以及增强方法的各个组成部分也被发现对结果有显著影响。结论:在本研究的局限性内,我们发现手术治疗骨下种植体周围炎缺损可导致PPD降低、MREC降低和Rx MBL增加,并且优于非重建治疗。然而,BoP和SUP两种治疗方式的结果没有显著差异。重建治疗可能是治疗植入体周围相关的下骨缺损的一种合适方法。
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