PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
January 24, 2019Journal Of Clinical Periodontology129 citationsOpen Access

Efficacy of reconstructive surgical therapy at peri‐implantitis‐related bone defects. A systematic review and meta‐analysis

View Full Paper
CTCristiano TomasiERErik RegidorAOAlberto Ortiz‐Vigón

Key Points

Key points are not available for this paper at this time.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: The present systematic review aimed at evaluating the efficacy of reconstructive surgical therapy at peri-implantitis-related bone defects. METHODS: and prediction intervals. RESULTS: The potential benefit of reconstructive techniques over control procedures was evaluated in three studies, representing a total of 116 implants. Altogether, 16 studies reported on the outcome of reconstructive measures at 12 months after surgery. The meta-analyses identified a larger improvement in marginal bone levels (MBL, WMD = 1.7 mm) and in defect fill (WMD = 57%) for test procedures, but found no differences for clinical measures (reduction of probing depth (PD) and bleeding on probing (BOP). Changes of clinical attachment and soft tissue levels were not considered. In terms of overall outcome, therapy resulted in improved MBL (WMD = 2.0 mm) and CAL (WMD = 1.8 mm), in recession (WMD = 0.7 mm), in reduced PD (WMD = 2.8 mm) and in reduced BOP (Implants: RR = 0.4/Sites: RR = 0.2). None of the included studies addressed patient-reported outcome measures. CONCLUSIONS: The available evidence on reconstructive therapy at peri-implantitis-related defects is limited by (a) the low number of controlled studies, (b) the lack of controlled studies for commonly used procedures, (c) the heterogeneity between studies and (d) the choice of outcome measures. A high variability for predicted outcomes at 12 months was noted. The interpretation of the demonstrated larger MBL gain for test procedures is difficult as graft material may not be distinguishable from newly formed bone. Potential aesthetic and patient-reported advantages remain to be demonstrated.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Tomasi et al. (2019) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/69fc048b7c10856f85dd6a7ehttps://doi.org/10.1111/jcpe.13070
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1Surgical therapy of single peri‐implantitis intrabony defects, by means of deproteinized bovine bone mineral with 10% collagen2016 · 80 citations
  2. 2Periodontal regeneration of infrabony defects (V). Effect of oral hygiene on long‐term stability1994 · 188 citations
  3. 3The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for Assessing the Quality of Nonrandomised Studies in Meta-Analyses2014 · 17,884 citations
  4. 4Porous titanium granules in the surgical treatment of peri-implant osseous defects: a randomized clinical trial.2012 · 71 citations
  5. 5Meta-analysis in clinical trials1986 · 39,954 citations