Abstract
Background Efficient control of infection is essential to achieve desired outcomes in the surgical treatment of peri-implantitis lesions, although methods employed are largely heterogeneous.
Purpose To compare the impact of different decontamination protocols and adjunctive systemic antimicrobials on the outcomes of surgical treatment of peri-implantitis.
Materials and methods Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on surgical treatment of peri-implantitis were selected through an electronic search on Medline, Embase, Scopus, and Central databases. Only studies comparing two or more anti-infective strategies were included. Following data extraction, two different sets of meta-analyses were performed. Firstly, overall impact of different implant surface decontamination methods was assessed by comparing baseline values with outcomes at 6-12 months. Secondly, pairwise comparisons evaluated the potential benefit of adjunctive systemic antimicrobials over placebo. Results were expressed as weighted mean effect (WME), weighed mean difference (WMD) or risk ratio (RR).
Results Sixteen RCTs were included. No pairwise comparisons were available for different surface decontamination methods. Use of curettes resulted in improved probing depth (PD) (WME = 2.13 mm), but the results in terms of marginal bone levels (MBL) and percentage of disease resolution were unsatisfactory. Moreover, the adjunctive benefit of systemic antimicrobials over placebo was evaluated in two studies, representing a total of 178 implants. Despite not being statistically significant, the meta-analyses identified a higher probability of disease resolution (RR = 1.50) for test procedures. In terms of overall outcome, systemic antimicrobials with open flap debridement resulted in improved MBL (WME = 0.44 mm), reduced PD (WME = 2.46 mm) and 51.4% of disease resolution.
Conclusions There is not enough evidence to support adjunctive usage of systemic antimicrobials together with the surgical treatment of peri-implantitis. Moreover, higher consistency is required to prove the superiority of a surface decontamination protocol over another (PROSPERO CRD42020182303).
What is known
Peri-implantitis is a common biological complication occurring at dental implants, and surgery is usually required to obtain thorough peri-implant infection control.
No systematic reviews with meta-analysis have assessed surface decontamination protocols for surgical treatment of peri-implantitis, as well as the adjunctive benefit of peri-operative systemic antimicrobials.
What this study adds
This study offered the first evidence-based synthesis of randomized clinical trials regarding this relevant topic.
Although protocol heterogeneity was high, a combination of mechanical and chemical implant surface decontamination is recommendable.
Titanium brushes and local delivery of minocycline showed encouraging results; while the additional benefit of systemic antimicrobials needs to be further determined.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Clinical Trial
PROSPERO CRD42020182303
Clinical Protocols
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020182303
Funding Statement
This study was funded solely by the institutions of the authors.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
Conflict of Interest Statement The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Funding This study was funded solely by the institutions of the authors.
Availability of data and material All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article [and its supplementary information files].
Data Availability
All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article [and its supplementary information files].
