Saneja Ritu, Bhattacharjee Bappaditya, Bhatnagar Atul, Kumar P G Naveen, Verma Arju
Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dental Sciences, Institute of Medical Sciences, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh, India.
Department of Public Health Dentistry, Faculty of Dental Sciences, Institute of Medical Sciences, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh, India.
J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2020 Oct-Dec;20(4):353-362. doi: 10.4103/jips.jips_144_20. Epub 2020 Oct 8.
Peri implant diseases lead to pathological changes in the peri implant tissues and loss of osseointegration. The purpose of this analysis is to evaluate the effect of various lasers and photodynamic therapy (PDT) on peri implant diseases compared to conventional procedures.
This meta analysis was conducted as per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta Analyses guidelines.
A systematic search of the electronic databases such as PubMed, ICTRP, CT.gov, Embase, and Cochrane Library was done additional to manual search of peer review article on peri-implant diseases. Eleven randomized control clinical trials were included in which laser therapy and PDT were used as an interventional procedure.
Review Manager 5.03 (RevMan, Nordic Cochrane Center, Copenhagen, Denmark), and random effects model were used to assess mean difference (MD). Bivariate differential mean statistic was used in intergroup estimate with 95% confidence interval (CI). I2 test statistics was applied for heterogenity and < 0.05 was considered significant statistically. The literature search yielded a total of 113 articles among which 11 articles were included for quantitative analysis. The selected outcome PD reported MD -0.01 with 95% CI (-0.13, 0.16), = 0.84, and CAL reported MD -0.09 with 95% CI (-0.32, 0.14), = 0.45, respectively.
Laser treatment as an adjunctive therapy or monotherapy in peri implantitis does not show any superior effects than conventional measures as per evidence. However, cases with peri implant mucositis have shown far more promising results with laser therapy compared to peri implantitis.
种植体周围疾病会导致种植体周围组织发生病理变化以及骨结合丧失。本分析的目的是评估与传统治疗方法相比,各种激光和光动力疗法(PDT)对种植体周围疾病的治疗效果。
本荟萃分析按照系统评价和荟萃分析的首选报告项目指南进行。
除了手动检索关于种植体周围疾病的同行评审文章外,还对电子数据库如PubMed、ICTRP、CT.gov、Embase和Cochrane图书馆进行了系统检索。纳入了11项随机对照临床试验,其中激光治疗和光动力疗法被用作干预措施。
使用Review Manager 5.03(RevMan,丹麦哥本哈根北欧Cochrane中心)和随机效应模型评估平均差异(MD)。组间估计采用双变量差异均值统计,95%置信区间(CI)。采用I²检验统计量评估异质性,P<0.05被认为具有统计学意义。文献检索共获得113篇文章,其中11篇文章纳入定量分析。选定的结果指标PD报告的MD为-0.01,95%CI为(-0.13,0.16),I²=0.84;CAL报告的MD为-0.09,95%CI为(-0.32,0.14),I²=0.45。
根据现有证据,激光治疗作为种植体周围炎的辅助治疗或单一治疗方法,并不比传统措施显示出任何更优越的效果。然而,与种植体周围炎相比,激光治疗在种植体周围黏膜炎病例中显示出更有前景的结果。