种植体周围粘膜炎的非手术治疗:一项系统回顾和荟萃分析。

Shayan Barootchi, Andrea Ravidà, Lorenzo Tavelli, Hom-Lay Wang
{"title":"种植体周围粘膜炎的非手术治疗:一项系统回顾和荟萃分析。","authors":"Shayan Barootchi,&nbsp;Andrea Ravidà,&nbsp;Lorenzo Tavelli,&nbsp;Hom-Lay Wang","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To assess the effectiveness of different nonsurgical protocols for the treatment of peri-implant mucositis.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>The identification of randomised clinical trials (RCTs) was systematically performed in three databases and supplemented by a thorough manual search of the literature in periodontics/implantology-related journals. Studies investigating the effect of mechanical and/or chemical plaque control agents aimed at preventing the development of peri-implant mucositis were excluded. When comparable trials were found, a meta-analysis was performed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Fourteen studies were included in the systematic review and three in the meta-analysis. None of the selected studies reported a complete resolution of the peri-implant mucositis lesions. A nonsurgical therapy alone showed an average reduction of: 0.57 mm (95% CI [0.30 to 0.83]) in probing pocket depth (PPD); 22.41% (95% CI [12.74 to 32.08]) in bleeding on probing (BOP); 17.28% (95% CI [3.99 to 30.58]) in the plaque index (PI); and 13.41% (95% CI [3.50 to 23.31]) in the bleeding index (BI). The meta-analysis failed to demonstrate significant improvements with the adjunct use of chlorhexidine disinfectant to nonsurgical mechanical debridement for PPD reduction (-0.07 mm; 95% CI [-0.33 to 1.15], P = 0.62), and relative attachment level (RAL) gain (-0.13 mm; 95% CI [-0.6 to 0.35]), P = 0.6).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Conventional nonsurgical mechanical therapy alone may be considered the standard treatment for peri-implant mucositis as there is still a lack of evidence supporting the use of additional chemical/mechanical agents for clinical and/or microbiological improvement.</p>","PeriodicalId":73463,"journal":{"name":"International journal of oral implantology (Berlin, Germany)","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Nonsurgical treatment for peri-implant mucositis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Shayan Barootchi,&nbsp;Andrea Ravidà,&nbsp;Lorenzo Tavelli,&nbsp;Hom-Lay Wang\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To assess the effectiveness of different nonsurgical protocols for the treatment of peri-implant mucositis.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>The identification of randomised clinical trials (RCTs) was systematically performed in three databases and supplemented by a thorough manual search of the literature in periodontics/implantology-related journals. Studies investigating the effect of mechanical and/or chemical plaque control agents aimed at preventing the development of peri-implant mucositis were excluded. When comparable trials were found, a meta-analysis was performed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Fourteen studies were included in the systematic review and three in the meta-analysis. None of the selected studies reported a complete resolution of the peri-implant mucositis lesions. A nonsurgical therapy alone showed an average reduction of: 0.57 mm (95% CI [0.30 to 0.83]) in probing pocket depth (PPD); 22.41% (95% CI [12.74 to 32.08]) in bleeding on probing (BOP); 17.28% (95% CI [3.99 to 30.58]) in the plaque index (PI); and 13.41% (95% CI [3.50 to 23.31]) in the bleeding index (BI). The meta-analysis failed to demonstrate significant improvements with the adjunct use of chlorhexidine disinfectant to nonsurgical mechanical debridement for PPD reduction (-0.07 mm; 95% CI [-0.33 to 1.15], P = 0.62), and relative attachment level (RAL) gain (-0.13 mm; 95% CI [-0.6 to 0.35]), P = 0.6).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Conventional nonsurgical mechanical therapy alone may be considered the standard treatment for peri-implant mucositis as there is still a lack of evidence supporting the use of additional chemical/mechanical agents for clinical and/or microbiological improvement.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":73463,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International journal of oral implantology (Berlin, Germany)\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International journal of oral implantology (Berlin, Germany)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International journal of oral implantology (Berlin, Germany)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:评价不同非手术治疗种植体周围黏膜炎的效果。材料和方法:在三个数据库中系统地进行随机临床试验(rct)的鉴定,并通过对牙周病/种植相关期刊的文献进行彻底的人工检索来补充。排除了旨在预防种植体周围粘膜炎发展的机械和/或化学斑块控制剂的研究。当发现可比较的试验时,进行荟萃分析。结果:系统评价纳入14项研究,荟萃分析纳入3项研究。所选的研究中没有一项报告完全解决了种植体周围粘膜炎病变。单独的非手术治疗显示探测袋深度(PPD)平均减少0.57 mm (95% CI[0.30至0.83]);探查出血(BOP)占22.41% (95% CI [12.74 ~ 32.08]);斑块指数(PI)为17.28% (95% CI [3.99 ~ 30.58]);出血指数(BI)为13.41% (95% CI[3.50 ~ 23.31])。meta分析未能证明在非手术机械清创中辅助使用氯己定消毒剂对PPD减少有显著改善(-0.07 mm;95% CI[-0.33至1.15],P = 0.62),相对附着水平(RAL)增益(-0.13 mm;95% CI [-0.6 ~ 0.35]), P = 0.6)。结论:常规的非手术机械治疗可以被认为是种植体周围粘膜炎的标准治疗方法,因为仍然缺乏证据支持使用额外的化学/机械药物来改善临床和/或微生物学。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Nonsurgical treatment for peri-implant mucositis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Purpose: To assess the effectiveness of different nonsurgical protocols for the treatment of peri-implant mucositis.

Materials and methods: The identification of randomised clinical trials (RCTs) was systematically performed in three databases and supplemented by a thorough manual search of the literature in periodontics/implantology-related journals. Studies investigating the effect of mechanical and/or chemical plaque control agents aimed at preventing the development of peri-implant mucositis were excluded. When comparable trials were found, a meta-analysis was performed.

Results: Fourteen studies were included in the systematic review and three in the meta-analysis. None of the selected studies reported a complete resolution of the peri-implant mucositis lesions. A nonsurgical therapy alone showed an average reduction of: 0.57 mm (95% CI [0.30 to 0.83]) in probing pocket depth (PPD); 22.41% (95% CI [12.74 to 32.08]) in bleeding on probing (BOP); 17.28% (95% CI [3.99 to 30.58]) in the plaque index (PI); and 13.41% (95% CI [3.50 to 23.31]) in the bleeding index (BI). The meta-analysis failed to demonstrate significant improvements with the adjunct use of chlorhexidine disinfectant to nonsurgical mechanical debridement for PPD reduction (-0.07 mm; 95% CI [-0.33 to 1.15], P = 0.62), and relative attachment level (RAL) gain (-0.13 mm; 95% CI [-0.6 to 0.35]), P = 0.6).

Conclusion: Conventional nonsurgical mechanical therapy alone may be considered the standard treatment for peri-implant mucositis as there is still a lack of evidence supporting the use of additional chemical/mechanical agents for clinical and/or microbiological improvement.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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