Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
BACKGROUND: Peri-implant diseases are prevalent, with numerous therapies studied in an attempt to combat this condition. The present review aims to systematically evaluate the effectiveness of laser therapy with non-surgical or surgical therapy in managing peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis. METHODS: An electronic search of three databases and a hand search of peer-reviewed journals for relevant articles published (in English) from January 1980 to June 2016 were performed. Human clinical trials of ≥ 10 patients with peri-implant diseases, treated with surgical or non-surgical approaches and laser therapy, and a follow-up period of ≥ 6 months, were included. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed to analyze weighted mean difference (WMD) and confidence interval for the recorded variables according to PRISMA guidelines. Risk of bias assessment was also performed for randomized controlled trials included. RESULTS: From 22 articles selected, 11 were included in the meta-analyses. The outcomes of using lasers as a monotherapy could not be evaluated since no controlled studies were identified. Therefore, all reported results were the outcomes of applying lasers as an adjunct to surgical/non-surgical treatment. For the non-surgical approach, WMD of probing depth (PD), clinical attachment level (CAL), bleeding on probing (BOP), plaque index (PI), marginal bone level (MBL) and recession (REC) was 0.15 mm (P = 0.50), -0.10 mm (P = 0.32), 21.08% (P = 0.02), -0.07 (P = 0.002), -0.22 mm (P = 0.04) and -0.11 mm (P = 0.34), respectively. For the surgical approach with a long-term follow up, WMD of PD, CAL, BOP, and PI was 0.45 mm (P = 0.11), 0.22 mm (P = 0.56), 7.26% (P = 0.76) and -0.09 (P = 0.84), respectively. Studies on others failed to have controlled evidence supporting their evaluation.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Lin et al. (2018) studied this question.