Vohra Fahim, Al-Rifaiy Mohammad Qasim, Lillywhite Graeme, Abu Hassan Mohamed Ibrahim, Javed Fawad
Department of Prosthetic Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Photochem Photobiol Sci. 2014 Aug;13(8):1160-8. doi: 10.1039/c4pp00083h.
The aim was to assess whether or not mechanical debridement with adjunct antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) is effective for the management of peri-implant diseases. The addressed focused question was "Is mechanical debridement with adjunct aPDT more effective in treating peri-implant diseases as compared to when mechanical debridement is used alone?" PubMed/MEDLINE and Google-Scholar databases were searched from 1994 till April 2014 using different combinations of the following keywords: antimicrobial photodynamic therapy; bone loss; light activated disinfection; mechanical debridement; and peri-implant diseases. Review articles, case-reports, commentaries, letters to the editor, unpublished articles and articles published in languages other than English were excluded. Twelve studies (six clinical and six experimental) were included. In the clinical and experimental studies, 15-80 implants and 18-150 implants respectively were used. Laser wavelengths, duration of irradiation and power output ranged between 625 nm-830 nm, 10 s-300 s, and 30 mW-200 mW, respectively. Four studies reported mechanical debridement with adjunct aPDT to be effective in the treatment of peri-implant diseases; however, the benefits of aPDT were comparable with conventional treatments. Two studies reported aPDT to reduce bacteria more than when the laser and the photosensitizer were applied alone. In two studies, chemical disinfection and aPDT showed comparable outcomes in terms of bacterial disinfection. In two experimental studies, aPDT was shown to improve bone to implant contact and re-osseointegration. Efficacy of mechanical debridement with adjunct aPDT for the management of peri-implant diseases remains debatable.
本研究旨在评估机械清创联合抗菌光动力疗法(aPDT)治疗种植体周围疾病是否有效。所提出的重点问题是“与单纯使用机械清创相比,机械清创联合aPDT治疗种植体周围疾病是否更有效?”使用以下关键词的不同组合,在1994年至2014年4月期间对PubMed/MEDLINE和谷歌学术数据库进行了检索:抗菌光动力疗法;骨吸收;光活化消毒;机械清创;以及种植体周围疾病。排除综述文章、病例报告、评论、致编辑的信、未发表的文章以及非英文发表的文章。纳入了12项研究(6项临床研究和6项实验研究)。在临床和实验研究中,分别使用了15 - 80颗种植体和18 - 150颗种植体。激光波长、照射时间和输出功率分别在625 nm - 830 nm、10 s - 300 s和30 mW - 200 mW之间。四项研究报告机械清创联合aPDT对治疗种植体周围疾病有效;然而,aPDT的益处与传统治疗相当。两项研究报告aPDT比单独使用激光和光敏剂时能更多地减少细菌。在两项研究中,化学消毒和aPDT在细菌消毒方面显示出相当的结果。在两项实验研究中,aPDT被证明可改善骨与种植体的接触以及再骨结合。机械清创联合aPDT治疗种植体周围疾病的疗效仍存在争议。