Mohammed Bin Rashid University of Medicine and Health Sciences, Hamdan Bin Mohammed College of Dental Medicine, Dubai Healthcare City, Dubai, United Arab Emirates.
Faculty of Dentistry, Sir John Walsh Research Institute, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.
Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2022 Apr;24(2):196-210. doi: 10.1111/cid.13072. Epub 2022 Feb 13.
Nonsurgical treatment of peri-implantitis may help in reducing microbial load and inflammatory parameters. The potential clinical benefits of using different treatment approaches, in the initial nonsurgical treatment phase, particularly the airflow, are still not clear. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analyses was to evaluate the outcomes of nonsurgical treatment of peri-implantitis using airflow method in terms of changes in periodontal parameters, peri-implant marginal bone level, postoperative pain/discomfort, and patient satisfaction.
Electronic databases were searched to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared airflow with mechanical debridement using ultrasonic/curettes. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias tool. Data were analyzed using a statistical software program.
A total of 316 studies were identified, of which, five RCTs with 288 dental implants in 174 participants were included. Overall meta-analysis showed more reduction in probing pocket depths at 1-3 months (mean difference [MD] -0.23; 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.50-0.05; p = 0.10) and 6 months (MD -0.04; 95% CI -0.34 to 0.27; p = 0.80) in favor of airflow, but the difference was not statistically significant. The use of airflow was associated with significant reduction in bleeding on probing and increase in peri-implant mucosal recession. The differences in plaque score, peri-implant marginal bone level changes, and patient reported outcomes between airflow and mechanical debridement were not statistically significant.
The short-term clinical and radiographic outcomes following nonsurgical treatment of peri-implantitis using airflow or mechanical debridement were comparable. The airflow has short-term positive effects on reducing bleeding on probing. Further evidence from RCTs are still required to substantiate the current findings.
非手术治疗种植体周围炎有助于减少微生物负荷和炎症参数。在初始非手术治疗阶段,使用不同治疗方法的潜在临床益处,特别是空气流,其效果尚不清楚。本系统评价和荟萃分析的目的是评估使用空气流方法治疗种植体周围炎的非手术治疗结果,具体为牙周参数、种植体边缘骨水平、术后疼痛/不适和患者满意度的变化。
电子数据库检索比较空气流与超声/龈下刮治机械清创的随机对照试验(RCT)。使用 Cochrane 协作风险偏倚工具评估偏倚风险。使用统计软件程序进行数据分析。
共确定了 316 项研究,其中纳入了 5 项 RCT,共 174 名参与者的 288 颗种植体。总体荟萃分析显示,在 1-3 个月(平均差异 [MD] -0.23;95%置信区间 [CI] -0.50-0.05;p = 0.10)和 6 个月(MD -0.04;95% CI -0.34 至 0.27;p = 0.80)时,探测袋深度的减少更有利于空气流,但差异无统计学意义。空气流的使用与探诊出血减少和种植体周围黏膜退缩增加相关。空气流和机械清创之间在菌斑评分、种植体边缘骨水平变化和患者报告的结果方面差异无统计学意义。
使用空气流或机械清创治疗种植体周围炎的短期临床和影像学结果相当。空气流在短期内对减少探诊出血有积极影响。需要更多 RCT 的证据来证实当前的发现。