Abstract
Data sources
Ovid, Medline, PubMed, Embase and Dentistry and Oral Sciences Source. Databases were searched from January 2006 to March 2016 and restricted to English, manual searches were also carried out in the relevant major journals.
Study selection
Two reviewers independently selected studies. Human prospective and retrospective observational studies with a minimum sample size of ten implants and involving at least one surgical regenerative treatment method for peri-implantitis were considered. Excluded studies included animal and in vitro studies, patients with uncontrolled systemic disease that put the implant at risk and ceramic or coated implants.
Data extraction and synthesis
Data abstraction and quality appraisal were carried out by two independent reviewers. The Cochrane Collaboration tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials was used.1 Meta-analysis of similar studies was conducted and the main outcome measures were; changes in radiologic bone level, probing depth and bleeding on probing change.
Results
Eighteen studies were included, eight prospective clinical studies, seven case series and three randomised clinical trials (RCTs). A total of 528 patients with 713 implants were treated. Two studies were at low risk of bias, one moderate, and three high. The remainder were classified as unclear.
Conclusions
Within the limits of this systematic review, surgical regenerative treatment is a predictable option in managing peri-implantitis and improving clinical parameters of peri-implant tissues. There is no fundamental advantage of membrane use for bone graft coverage or submergence of the healing site on the final outcome of peri-implant defect regeneration. Due to the limited number of randomised clinical trials, at the time there is a lack of scientific evidence in the literature regarding the superiority of the regenerative versus non-regenerative surgical treatment.
Similar content being viewed by others
Log in or create a free account to read this content
Gain free access to this article, as well as selected content from this journal and more on nature.com
or
References
Higgins J P, Altman D G, Gøtzsche P C, et al. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 2011; 343: 889–893.
Ramanauskaite A, Daugela P, Faria de Almeida R, Saulacic N . Surgical Non-Regenerative Treatments for Peri-Implantitis: a Systematic Review. J Oral Maxillofac Res 2016; 7: e14.
Yudkin JS, Lipska KJ, Montori VM . The idolatry of the surrogate. BMJ 2011; 343: d7995.
Heneghan C, Goldacre B, Mahtani KR . Why clinical trial outcomes fail to translate into benefits for patients. Trials 2017; 18: 122.
Ioannidis JP . How to make,more published research true. PLoS Med 2014; 11: e1001747.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
Address for correspondence: Povilas Daugela, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Lithuanian University of Health Sciences, Eiveniu str. 2, LT-50009, Kaunas, Lithuania. E-mail: p.daugela@gmail.com
Abstracted from Daugela P, Cicciù M, Saulacic N. Surgical Regenerative Treatments for Peri-Implantitis: Meta-analysis of Recent Findings in a Systematic Literature Review. J Oral Maxillofac Res 2016; 7: e15. eCollection 2016 Jul-Sep. Review. PubMed PMID: 27833740; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC5100640.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Steven-Howe, M., Richards, D. Surgical regenerative treatment of peri-implantitis. Evid Based Dent 18, 79–81 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ebd.6401256
Published:
Issue date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ebd.6401256
This article is cited by
-
A modified surgical approach for hard and soft tissue reconstruction of severe periimplantitis defects: laser-assisted periimplant defect regeneration (LAPIDER)
International Journal of Implant Dentistry (2020)
