Surgical regenerative methods for peri-implantitis treatment: A systematic review and meta-analysis
2024

Surgical Methods for Treating Peri-Implantitis

Sample size: 455 publication 10 minutes Evidence: moderate

Author Information

Author(s): Shahbazi Soheil, Esmaeili Saharnaz, Shirvani Armin, Amid Reza, Kadkhodazadeh Mahdi

Primary Institution: Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

Hypothesis

Which surgical regenerative protocols lead to more significant improvements in clinical and radiographic parameters during a minimum follow-up duration of 12 months?

Conclusion

Using bone grafts did not significantly improve bleeding on probing, probing depth, and bone gain, but plaque index and bone level showed significant enhancements.

Supporting Evidence

  • Fifteen studies were included in the qualitative synthesis.
  • The overall effect size for using bone grafts at the one-year follow-up was 0.04 for BoP.
  • Bone grafts did not significantly influence the amount of bone gain following a one-year interval.
  • Using bone grafts significantly boosted the decrease in plaque index values.
  • Using a bone graft during surgical regeneration had a significant positive impact on bone level improvements.

Takeaway

This study looked at different ways to fix problems around dental implants. It found that while some methods helped with certain issues, others didn't make much difference.

Methodology

The study reviewed literature and performed a meta-analysis on surgical regenerative treatments for peri-implantitis, extracting data on various clinical parameters.

Potential Biases

Some studies raised concerns about bias, while others had a low risk.

Limitations

Variability in treatment components and definitions of peri-implantitis affected the reliability of comparisons.

Participant Demographics

Mean age of participants was 63.13 years, with 31.85% being smokers.

Statistical Information

P-Value

P=0.01 for plaque index, P=0.03 for bone level

Confidence Interval

95% CI: -0.26‒0.35 for BoP, -0.08 (95% CI: -0.42‒0.27) for PD, 0.37 (95% CI: 0.08‒0.65) for PI, -0.44 (95% CI: -0.84 to -0.03) for BL, 0.16 (95% CI: -0.68‒1.01) for BG

Statistical Significance

p<0.05

Digital Object Identifier (DOI)

10.34172/japid.2024.013

Want to read the original?

Access the complete publication on the publisher's website

View Original Publication