Passarelli Pier Carmine, Netti Andrea, Lopez Michele Antonio, Giaquinto Eleonora Favetti, De Rosa Giuseppe, Aureli Gianmarco, Bodnarenko Alina, Papi Piero, Starzyńska Anna, Pompa Giorgio, D'Addona Antonio
Department of Head and Neck and Sensory Organs, Division of Oral Surgery and Implantology, Institute of Clinical Dentistry, Gemelli Foundation for the University Policlinic, Catholic University of the "Sacred Heart", 00168 Rome, Italy.
Unit of Otolaryngology, University Campus Bio-Medico, 00128 Rome, Italy.
Antibiotics (Basel). 2021 Oct 25;10(11):1298. doi: 10.3390/antibiotics10111298.
Most studies indicate that the mechanical removal of the bacterial biofilm from the implant surface is the central goal of peri-implantitis therapy. However, controversial results in the treatment of peri-implantitis have led to the consideration of additional strategies that include surgical approaches and chemical adjuvants. Local/topical antibiotics, such as minocycline, azithromycin, tetracycline, amoxicillin, doxycycline, and metronidazole, may improve the efficacy of the definitive treatment of the disease, but the lack of conclusive findings prevents their use in clinical practice. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the effect of local/topical antibiotics for peri-implantitis treatment. Randomised controlled studies (RCT) on patients with peri-implantitis and comparing the efficacy of local/topical antibiotics vs. placebo or mechanical debridement were included. A systematic search strategy was carried out using three registered databases (PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus). RoB2 was used to assess risk of bias. Five RCTs were identified ( = 250 patients and 333 implants). Contrast results emerged among the included studies, and a high heterogeneity level was observed. Risk of bias revealed some concerns for three studies out of five, while one study was judged at high risk. Only one study analysed the limitations of its findings. Overall, local antibiotic use can be considered a valid approach in the treatment of peri-implantitis. Therefore, future long-term clinical trials with standardised protocols and antibiotics with similar biological activity profiles should be tested to achieve a valid and definitive conclusion.
大多数研究表明,从种植体表面机械清除细菌生物膜是种植体周围炎治疗的核心目标。然而,种植体周围炎治疗中存在的争议性结果促使人们考虑采用其他策略,包括手术方法和化学佐剂。局部/外用抗生素,如米诺环素、阿奇霉素、四环素、阿莫西林、强力霉素和甲硝唑,可能会提高该疾病确定性治疗的疗效,但由于缺乏确凿的研究结果,这些抗生素无法在临床实践中使用。本系统评价旨在评估局部/外用抗生素治疗种植体周围炎的效果。纳入了针对种植体周围炎患者的随机对照试验(RCT),比较局部/外用抗生素与安慰剂或机械清创的疗效。使用三个注册数据库(PubMed、科学网和Scopus)进行了系统的检索策略。采用RoB2评估偏倚风险。共识别出5项RCT(250例患者和333颗种植体)。纳入研究的结果存在差异,且观察到高度异质性。偏倚风险显示,五项研究中有三项存在一些问题,而一项研究被判定为高风险。只有一项研究分析了其研究结果的局限性。总体而言,局部使用抗生素可被视为治疗种植体周围炎的一种有效方法。因此,未来应进行标准化方案和具有相似生物活性谱的抗生素的长期临床试验,以得出有效和明确的结论。