Logo-japid
J Adv Periodontol Implant Dent. 2024;16(2): 144-159.
doi: 10.34172/japid.2024.013
  Abstract View: 99
  PDF Download: 51

Research Article

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

Soheil Shahbazi 1 ORCID logo, Saharnaz Esmaeili 1 ORCID logo, Armin Shirvani 2 ORCID logo, Reza Amid 3 ORCID logo, Mahdi Kadkhodazadeh 4* ORCID logo

1 Dentofacial Deformities Research Center, Research Institute of Dental Sciences, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
2 Iranian Center for Endodontic Research, Research Institute of Dental Sciences, Dental School, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
3 Dental Research Center, Research Institute of Dental Sciences, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
4 Department of Periodontics, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
*Corresponding Author: Mahdi Kadkhodazadeh, Email: kadkhodazadehmahdi@yahoo.com

Abstract

Background. The purpose of this study was to review the literature on the efficacy of different surgical regenerative methods for peri-implantitis treatment.

Methods. A preliminary search was conducted in seven electronic databases. The studies included in the analysis implemented surgical regenerative treatment in at least one study group. Baseline and follow-up values for bleeding on probing (BoP), pocket depth (PD), plaque index (PI), bone level (BL), and bone gain (BG) were extracted. The standardized mean difference (SMD) was calculated using Cohen’s d or Hedges’ g, and a random-effects-restricted maximum likelihood (REML) method was applied for the meta-analysis.

Results. Fifteen studies were included in the qualitative synthesis. The meta-analysis was performed on six studies comparing regenerative techniques that involved bone grafts with those that did not. The overall effect size for using bone grafts at the one-year follow-up was 0.04 (95% CI: -0.26‒0.35; P=0.78) for BoP, -0.08 (95% CI: -0.42‒0.27; P=0.66) for PD, 0.37 (95% CI: 0.08‒0.65; P=0.01) for PI, -0.44 (95% CI: -0.84 to -0.03; P=0.03) for BL, and 0.16 (95% CI: -0.68‒1.01; P=0.70) for BG.

Conclusion. Various materials have been employed for peri-implant defect filling and coverage. A bone substitute did not significantly improve BoP, PD, and BG values, while PI and BL were significantly ameliorated at one-year follow-up. However, recommending a single unified protocol as the most effective for surgical regenerative treatment of peri-implantitis was not feasible.

First Name
 
Last Name
 
Email Address
 
Comments
 
Security code


Abstract View: 100

Your browser does not support the canvas element.


PDF Download: 51

Your browser does not support the canvas element.

Submitted: 09 Mar 2024
Accepted: 12 Jun 2024
ePublished: 31 Jul 2024
EndNote EndNote

(Enw Format - Win & Mac)

BibTeX BibTeX

(Bib Format - Win & Mac)

Bookends Bookends

(Ris Format - Mac only)

EasyBib EasyBib

(Ris Format - Win & Mac)

Medlars Medlars

(Txt Format - Win & Mac)

Mendeley Web Mendeley Web
Mendeley Mendeley

(Ris Format - Win & Mac)

Papers Papers

(Ris Format - Win & Mac)

ProCite ProCite

(Ris Format - Win & Mac)

Reference Manager Reference Manager

(Ris Format - Win only)

Refworks Refworks

(Refworks Format - Win & Mac)

Zotero Zotero

(Ris Format - Firefox Plugin)