« Prev |
2016 Jul-Sep; Vol 7, No 3:e15 |
Next » |
e15 |
Surgical Regenerative Treatments for Peri-Implantitis: Meta-analysis of Recent Findings in a Systematic Literature Review J Oral Maxillofac Res 2016;7(3):e15 doi:10.5037/jomr.2016.7315 |
Surgical Regenerative Treatments for Peri-Implantitis: Meta-analysis of Recent Findings in a Systematic Literature Review
1Department of Maxillofacial Surgery, Lithuanian University of Health Sciences, Kaunas, Lithuania.
2Human Pathology Department, Messina University, Messina, Italy.
3Department of Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Corresponding Author:
Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
Lithuanian University of Health Sciences
Eiveniu str. 2, LT-50009, Kaunas
Lithuania
Phone: +370 600 61999
E-mail: p.daugela@gmail.com
ABSTRACT
Objectives: The purpose of the present study was to systematically review the literature on the surgical regenerative treatment of the peri-implantitis and to determine an effective therapeutic predictable option for their clinical management.
Material and Methods: The study searched MEDLINE and EMBASE databases from 2006 to 2016. Clinical human studies that had reported changes in probing depth (PD) and/or bleeding on probing (BOP) and/or radiologic marginal bone level (RBL) changes after peri-implantitis surgical treatment at 12-month follow-up or longer were included accordingly to PRISMA guidelines.
Results: The initial search obtained 883 citations. After screening and determination of eligibility, 18 articles were included in the review. The meta-analysis of selected studies revealed that the weighted mean RBL fill was 1.97 mm (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.58 to 2.35 mm), PD reduction was 2.78 mm (95% CI = 2.31 to 3.25 mm), and BOP reduced by 52.5% (95% CI = 41.6 to 63.1%). Defect fill in studies using and not using barrier membranes for graft coverage was 1.86 mm (95% CI = 1.36 to 2.36 mm) and 2.12 mm (95% CI = 1.46 to 2.78 mm) correspondingly. High heterogeneity among the studies regarding defects morphology, surgical protocols, and selection of biomaterials were found.
Conclusions: All included studies underlined an improvement of clinical conditions after the surgical regenerative treatment of peri-implantitis, however, there is a lack of scientific evidence in the literature regarding the superiority of the regenerative versus non-regenerative surgical treatment. The presence of a barrier membrane or submergence in the regenerative procedure does not seem to be fundamental in order to obtain clinical success of the surgery.
J Oral Maxillofac Res 2016;7(3):e15
doi: 10.5037/jomr.2016.7315
Accepted for publication: 19 August 2016
Keywords: alveolar bone grafting; biocompatible materials; alveolar bone loss; bone regeneration; oral surgery; peri-implantitis.
To cite this article: Surgical Regenerative Treatments for Peri-Implantitis: Meta-analysis of Recent Findings in a Systematic Literature Review J Oral Maxillofac Res 2016;7(3):e15 URL: http://www.ejomr.org/JOMR/archives/2016/3/e15/v7n3e15ht.htm |
Received: 1 August 2016 | Accepted: 19 August 2016 | Published: 9 September 2016
Copyright: © The Author(s). Published by JOMR under CC BY-NC-ND 3.0 licence, 2016.