Zhao Rui, Hu Huimin, Wang Yan, Lai Wenli, Jian Fan
Department of Orthodontics, State Key Laboratory of Oral Diseases and National Clinical Research Center for Oral Diseases, West China Hospital of Stomatology, Sichuan University, Chengdu, China.
Front Pharmacol. 2021 Jan 18;11:541752. doi: 10.3389/fphar.2020.541752. eCollection 2020.
Peri-implant mucositis (PiM) is an inflammation of the soft tissues surrounding the dental implant and is the precursor of the destructive inflammatory peri-implantitis. PiM is usually reversible, but difficult to eradicate. Mechanical debridement (MD) is the conventional procedure to treat PiM although not enough to reach a complete resolution. Recently, probiotics have been considered in the treatment of peri-implant disease. Therefore, the aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to investigate the efficacy of the probiotic therapy combined with MD compared with MD alone or MD + placebo in patients with PiM. A search using electronic databases (MEDLINE, Science Direct databases, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) and a manual search were performed up to November 2019 by two reviewers independently of each other. Eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing MD + probiotic vs. MD were included. The quality assessment for all the selected RCTs was conducted according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Probing depth reduction was selected as the primary outcome. Weighted mean difference (WMD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated for continuous outcomes, and odds ratio (OR) and 95% CI were calculated for dichotomous outcomes, using random effect models. This review was registered on the PROSPERO database (CRD42020213625). Five eligible publications were included in this systematic review and four in the meta-analysis. As regards the implant, the WMD in the probing depth reduction between the test and control group was -0.12 mm [95% CI (-0.38, 0.14), = 0.38], meaning that the adjunctive probiotic therapy was not improving PiM compared with MD alone or MD + placebo. The meta-analysis also showed no statistically significant results in the secondary outcomes (reduction of full mouth plaque index and full mouth bleeding on probing, absence of bleeding on probing at implant level, and changes in microorganism load and species). The findings of this systematic review and meta-analysis suggested that the additional use of probiotics did not improve the efficacy of MD in PiM treatment regarding clinical and microbial outcomes, at least in a short-term.
种植体周围黏膜炎(PiM)是牙种植体周围软组织的炎症,是具有破坏性的种植体周围炎的先兆。PiM通常是可逆的,但难以根除。机械清创术(MD)是治疗PiM的传统方法,尽管不足以实现完全治愈。最近,益生菌已被考虑用于种植体周围疾病的治疗。因此,本系统评价和荟萃分析的目的是研究在PiM患者中,益生菌疗法联合MD与单独使用MD或MD+安慰剂相比的疗效。两位评价者于2019年11月前相互独立地使用电子数据库(MEDLINE、科学Direct数据库和Cochrane对照试验中央注册库)进行检索并进行手工检索。纳入比较MD+益生菌与MD的合格随机对照试验(RCT)。根据Cochrane干预措施系统评价手册对所有选定的RCT进行质量评估。选择探诊深度减少作为主要结局。使用随机效应模型计算连续结局的加权平均差(WMD)和95%置信区间(CI),计算二分结局的比值比(OR)和95%CI。本评价已在PROSPERO数据库(CRD42020213625)注册。本系统评价纳入了5篇合格文献,荟萃分析纳入了4篇。关于种植体,试验组和对照组在探诊深度减少方面的WMD为-0.12mm[95%CI(-0.38,0.14),P=0.38],这意味着与单独使用MD或MD+安慰剂相比,辅助益生菌疗法并未改善PiM。荟萃分析在次要结局(全口菌斑指数降低、全口探诊出血、种植体水平探诊无出血以及微生物负荷和种类变化)方面也未显示出统计学上的显著结果。本系统评价和荟萃分析的结果表明,至少在短期内,额外使用益生菌在PiM治疗的临床和微生物学结局方面并未提高MD疗法的疗效。