|
|
||||||||
|
J Am Dent Assoc, Vol 140, No 3, 340-341.
© 2009 American Dental Association | ![]() |
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RESEARCH |
The authors conducted an all-language search of several electronic databases (from as early as 1966 through January 2008) and relevant dental journals. They contacted selected authors and dental implant manufacturers to locate unpublished or ongoing RCTs. Two of the authors served as reviewers and independently duplicated the selection of studies for inclusion, evaluation of study quality, and data extraction.
The only statistically significant differences between treatment outcomes were in two trials judged by the authors to be at high risk of bias. The addition of doxycycline to manual débridement provided an additional 0.6 millimeters improvement in PAL and PPD in patients demonstrating at least 50 percent bone loss. And although both augmentation procedures improved PAL and PPD, the bovine-derived xenograft/membrane group gained an additional 0.5 mm in PAL and PPD.
![]()
Clinical question.
TOP
Clinical question.
Review methods.
Main results.
Conclusions.
FOOTNOTES
Importance and context.
Strengths and weaknesses of...
Strengths and weaknesses of...
Implications for dental...
What are the most effective treatments for peri-implantitis, the progressive marginal bone loss around dental implants induced by bacterial plaque infection?
![]()
Review methods.
TOP
Clinical question.
Review methods.
Main results.
Conclusions.
FOOTNOTES
Importance and context.
Strengths and weaknesses of...
Strengths and weaknesses of...
Implications for dental...
For this systematic review, the authors selected for inclusion randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving patients with at least one stable implant demonstrating marginal bone loss who were treated for peri-implantitis. The authors included studies in which surgical and nonsurgical procedures aimed at treating peri-implantitis were evaluated. Outcome measures included change in probing pocket depth (PPD) and probing attachment level (PAL), as well as implant failure.
![]()
Main results.
TOP
Clinical question.
Review methods.
Main results.
Conclusions.
FOOTNOTES
Importance and context.
Strengths and weaknesses of...
Strengths and weaknesses of...
Implications for dental...
The authors identified seven studies (146 patients total) that met their inclusion criteria. In these studies, investigators evaluated the following treatments:
![]()
Conclusions.
TOP
Clinical question.
Review methods.
Main results.
Conclusions.
FOOTNOTES
Importance and context.
Strengths and weaknesses of...
Strengths and weaknesses of...
Implications for dental...
The majority of studies in which more complex and expensive therapies for treating peri-implantitis were evaluated did not show statistically or clinically significant advantages for these treatments versus simple subgingival débridement. For treatments having similar degrees of effectiveness, there is no information on which have fewer adverse effects or are simpler or less expensive to use. The lack of reliable evidence demonstrating which treatments are most effective for treating peri-implantitis does not mean that treatments used are ineffective. Local antibiotics and bone augmentation may provide additional benefit in treatment of peri-implantitis, but large, well-designed RCTs are needed to address this question adequately.
| FOOTNOTES |
|---|
![]()
Importance and context.
TOP
Clinical question.
Review methods.
Main results.
Conclusions.
FOOTNOTES
Importance and context.
Strengths and weaknesses of...
Strengths and weaknesses of...
Implications for dental...
Dental implants have found increasing acceptance as a treatment option for replacing missing teeth. Maintaining osseointegration is as important as achieving it, and, as with natural teeth, dental implants may be compromised by periodontal infection across time. This review focused exclusively on the treatment of peri-implantitis induced by plaque infection. Although various treatments and combinations of treatments have been recommended, solid evidence is lacking to determine which treatments are most effective for long-term implant maintenance.
![]()
Strengths and weaknesses of the systematic review.
TOP
Clinical question.
Review methods.
Main results.
Conclusions.
FOOTNOTES
Importance and context.
Strengths and weaknesses of...
Strengths and weaknesses of...
Implications for dental...
In a comprehensive search, including gray literature (unpublished or difficult-to-access studies) and ongoing RCTs, the authors found 10 RCTs, of which they judged only seven suitable for inclusion in the review. They detailed specific weaknesses of each study and suggested improvements in study design.
![]()
Strengths and weaknesses of the evidence.
TOP
Clinical question.
Review methods.
Main results.
Conclusions.
FOOTNOTES
Importance and context.
Strengths and weaknesses of...
Strengths and weaknesses of...
Implications for dental...
The authors describe weaknesses that limit the reliability of each studys results and the inability to extrapolate that information to other populations. The small trial sizes make it difficult to detect differences in treatment effectiveness, and because the studies were of limited duration, they do not provide evidence of long-term treatment benefit. Six of the seven studies were judged to be at high risk of bias, and at least five of the studies were supported by manufacturers. In the seven studies the authors included, researchers evaluated six different therapies and combinations of therapy, and no study compared the tested treatment with a placebo or a no-treatment control. The results do not allow us to confirm the effectiveness of different treatments for peri-implantitis or discriminate between those that may be effective.
![]()
Implications for dental practice.
TOP
Clinical question.
Review methods.
Main results.
Conclusions.
FOOTNOTES
Importance and context.
Strengths and weaknesses of...
Strengths and weaknesses of...
Implications for dental...
Dental practitioners need reliable evidence on which to base treatment recommendations. A critical assessment of all available research provides insufficient evidence at this time regarding the long-term clinical benefit of different treatments for peri-implantitis on which to base treatment decisions. In the majority of studies, simple sub-gingival débridement appeared to provide results similar to those of the more complex and expensive treatments. Local antibiotics and bone augmentation may prove more effective in the treatment of peri-implantitis, but properly designed and conducted RCTs are needed to establish that.
| FOOTNOTES |
|---|
|
|
|---|
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
R. Niederman Evidence-based dentistry finds a new forum: Exelauno. J Am Dent Assoc, March 1, 2009; 140(3): 272 - 274. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |