Treatment of Peri-implant Mucositis: An AAP/AO Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Guo-Hao Lin, Leandro Chambrone, Yogalakshmi Rajendran, Gustavo Avila-Ortiz
{"title":"Treatment of Peri-implant Mucositis: An AAP/AO Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.","authors":"Guo-Hao Lin, Leandro Chambrone, Yogalakshmi Rajendran, Gustavo Avila-Ortiz","doi":"10.11607/jomi.2025suppl2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To assess whether adjunctive treatment modalities offer therapeutic advantages when used in combination with peri-implant debridement-defined as supra- and/or submarginal debridement using manual, sonic, and/or ultrasonic instrumentation-for the treatment of peri-implant mucositis.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Relevant articles published in English between January 1980 and October 2023 were searched. Clinical trials involving ≥ 10 patients diagnosed with peri-implant mucositis and treated with debridement alone versus debridement plus an adjunctive treatment were included. Data were extracted and meta-analyses were performed to investigate the effect of different therapeutic approaches on several outcomes of interest (ie, pocket depth [PD] and bleeding on probing [BoP] reduction as well as complete disease resolution).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 25 articles were selected, of which 19 were included in the meta-analyses. Peri-implant debridement generally resulted in PD and BoP reduction. For studies including nonsmokers or patients with unclear smoking status, outcomes of individual studies revealed that the use of certain probiotics, such as Lactobacillus reuteri strains, may modestly reduce BoP in the short term. For studies exclusively involving smokers or users of vapes/ electronic cigarettes, the clinical benefits of adjunctive therapy were negligible. Complete disease resolution was not consistently achieved regardless of the treatment modality.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Peri-implant debridement as a monotherapy for the treatment of peri-implant mucositis generally results in clinical improvements in terms of PD and BoP reduction. The use of adjunctive treatment modalities does not appear to provide a clinically significant additional therapeutic benefit compared to debridement alone, independent of the patient's smoking status. Complete peri-implant mucositis resolution is an elusive outcome.</p>","PeriodicalId":94230,"journal":{"name":"The International journal of oral & maxillofacial implants","volume":" 4","pages":"49-72"},"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.2025suppl2","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: To assess whether adjunctive treatment modalities offer therapeutic advantages when used in combination with peri-implant debridement-defined as supra- and/or submarginal debridement using manual, sonic, and/or ultrasonic instrumentation-for the treatment of peri-implant mucositis.

Materials and methods: Relevant articles published in English between January 1980 and October 2023 were searched. Clinical trials involving ≥ 10 patients diagnosed with peri-implant mucositis and treated with debridement alone versus debridement plus an adjunctive treatment were included. Data were extracted and meta-analyses were performed to investigate the effect of different therapeutic approaches on several outcomes of interest (ie, pocket depth [PD] and bleeding on probing [BoP] reduction as well as complete disease resolution).

Results: A total of 25 articles were selected, of which 19 were included in the meta-analyses. Peri-implant debridement generally resulted in PD and BoP reduction. For studies including nonsmokers or patients with unclear smoking status, outcomes of individual studies revealed that the use of certain probiotics, such as Lactobacillus reuteri strains, may modestly reduce BoP in the short term. For studies exclusively involving smokers or users of vapes/ electronic cigarettes, the clinical benefits of adjunctive therapy were negligible. Complete disease resolution was not consistently achieved regardless of the treatment modality.

Conclusions: Peri-implant debridement as a monotherapy for the treatment of peri-implant mucositis generally results in clinical improvements in terms of PD and BoP reduction. The use of adjunctive treatment modalities does not appear to provide a clinically significant additional therapeutic benefit compared to debridement alone, independent of the patient's smoking status. Complete peri-implant mucositis resolution is an elusive outcome.

种植体周围粘膜炎的治疗:AAP/AO系统回顾和荟萃分析。
目的:评估辅助治疗方式在与种植体周围清创联合使用时是否具有治疗优势-定义为使用手动,声波和/或超声仪器进行上和/或边缘下清创-用于治疗种植体周围粘膜炎。资料与方法:检索1980年1月~ 2023年10月发表的相关英文文献。临床试验纳入了≥10例诊断为种植体周围粘膜炎且单独清创与清创加辅助治疗的患者。提取数据并进行荟萃分析,以调查不同治疗方法对几个感兴趣的结果(即口袋深度[PD]和探查[BoP]降低出血以及完全疾病消退)的影响。结果:共纳入25篇文献,其中19篇纳入meta分析。种植体周围清创通常导致PD和BoP降低。对于包括非吸烟者或不清楚吸烟状况的患者的研究,个别研究的结果显示,使用某些益生菌,如罗伊氏乳杆菌菌株,可能在短期内适度降低BoP。对于专门涉及吸烟者或电子烟使用者的研究,辅助治疗的临床益处可以忽略不计。无论采用何种治疗方式,疾病的完全解决并不一致。结论:种植体周围清创作为一种治疗种植体周围粘膜炎的单一疗法,在PD和BoP降低方面均可获得临床改善。与单独清创相比,辅助治疗方式的使用似乎没有提供临床显着的额外治疗益处,与患者的吸烟状况无关。完全解决种植体周围粘膜炎是一个难以捉摸的结果。
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