Department of Periodontics and Oral Medicine, University of Michigan School of Dentistry, Ann Arbor, MI.
Department of Orofacial Sciences, University of California San Francisco School of Dentistry, San Francisco, CA.
J Periodontol. 2018 Jul;89(7):766-782. doi: 10.1902/jop.2017.160483.
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.
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.
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.
Current evidence shows laser therapy in combination with surgical/non-surgical therapy provided minimal benefit in PD reduction, CAL gain, amount of REC improvement, and PI reduction in the treatment of peri-implant diseases. Lasers when used as an adjunct to non-surgical therapy might result in more BOP reduction in the short term. However, current evidence allowed for analysis of only Er:YAG, CO , and diode lasers. Studies on others failed to have controlled evidence supporting their evaluation.
种植体周围疾病很常见,有许多治疗方法被研究用于治疗这种疾病。本综述旨在系统评估激光治疗在非手术或手术治疗种植体周围黏膜炎和种植体周围炎中的疗效。
从 1980 年 1 月至 2016 年 6 月,对三个数据库进行电子检索,并对同行评议期刊进行手工检索,以查找已发表的相关文章(英文)。纳入了≥10 例患有种植体周围疾病的患者的临床试验,这些患者接受了手术或非手术方法和激光治疗,随访时间≥6 个月。根据 PRISMA 指南,对记录变量进行了加权均数差(WMD)和置信区间的随机效应荟萃分析。还对纳入的随机对照试验进行了偏倚风险评估。
从 22 篇选定的文章中,有 11 篇被纳入荟萃分析。由于未确定对照研究,因此无法评估激光作为单一疗法的效果。因此,所有报告的结果均为激光作为手术/非手术治疗辅助的结果。对于非手术方法,探测深度(PD)、临床附着水平(CAL)、探诊出血(BOP)、菌斑指数(PI)、边缘骨水平(MBL)和退缩(REC)的 WMD 分别为 0.15mm(P=0.50)、-0.10mm(P=0.32)、21.08%(P=0.02)、-0.07(P=0.002)、-0.22mm(P=0.04)和-0.11mm(P=0.34)。对于长期随访的手术方法,PD、CAL、BOP 和 PI 的 WMD 分别为 0.45mm(P=0.11)、0.22mm(P=0.56)、7.26%(P=0.76)和-0.09(P=0.84)。
目前的证据表明,激光治疗联合手术/非手术治疗在减少 PD、增加 CAL、改善 REC 程度和减少 PI 方面仅提供了最小的益处,用于治疗种植体周围疾病。激光作为非手术治疗的辅助手段,可能会在短期内导致 BOP 的减少。然而,目前的证据仅允许对 Er:YAG、CO2 和二极管激光进行分析。关于其他激光的研究未能提供支持其评估的对照证据。