Grusovin Maria Gabriella, Pispero Alberto, Del Fabbro Massimo, Sangiorgi Matteo, Simion Massimo, Stefanini Martina, Varoni Elena Maria
Dipartimento Odontoiatria, Università Vita Salute "S. Raffaele", 20132 Milan, Italy.
Libera Professionista in Gorizia (Dental Private Practice), 34170 Gorizia, Italy.
Antibiotics (Basel). 2022 Dec 7;11(12):1766. doi: 10.3390/antibiotics11121766.
The role of antibiotics as adjunctive therapy in the non-surgical treatment of peri-implantitis is uncertain. The aim of this systematic review of randomized controlled trials was to assess the efficacy of antibiotic therapy, local or systemic, as an adjunctive to the non-surgical therapy of peri-implantitis. Primary outcomes were: implant success rate and complications, changes in radiographic bone level, probing pocket depth (PPD), probing attachment level (PAL), bleeding on probing (BOP) and peri-implantitis resolution. Six studies were included: two using topical and four systemic antibiotics. Adjunctive local antibiotics improved PPD (mean difference (MD) = 0.6 mm; 95% CI 0.42-0.78), BOP (MD = 0.15% (95% CI 0.10, 0.19)) and the success rate (risk ratio = 9.89; 95% CI 2.39-40.84). No significant difference in bone level and success rate were found with the use of systemic antibiotics, although they appeared to improve PPD (MD = 1.15 mm; 95% CI 0.31-1.99) and PAL (MD = 1.10 mm; 95% CI 0.13-2.08). Within the limitations of this review, the adjunctive local antibiotics showed improved outcomes in terms of success rate, PPD and BOP, while adjunctive systemic antibiotics improved PPD and PAL only. Peri-implantitis resolution was about 20-30% using adjunctive local antibiotics, whilst it ranged from 2% to 65% with adjunctive systemic antibiotics. Findings are still controversial, since they are based on few studies with high heterogeneity, at the uncertain or high risk of bias and involve few patients. Non-surgical debridement and maintenance periodontal support therapy remain pivotal and the adjunctive use of antibiotics for peri-implantitis cannot be routinely recommended, even considering the increasing concern on antibiotic resistance.
抗生素作为种植体周围炎非手术治疗辅助疗法的作用尚不确定。本随机对照试验系统评价的目的是评估局部或全身应用抗生素作为种植体周围炎非手术治疗辅助疗法的疗效。主要结局指标包括:种植体成功率及并发症、影像学骨水平变化、探诊深度(PPD)、探诊附着水平(PAL)、探诊出血(BOP)及种植体周围炎的缓解情况。纳入了6项研究:2项使用局部抗生素,4项使用全身抗生素。辅助局部应用抗生素可改善PPD(平均差(MD)=0.6mm;95%置信区间0.42 - 0.78)、BOP(MD = 0.15%(95%置信区间0.10,0.19))及成功率(风险比=9.89;95%置信区间2.39 - 40.84)。使用全身抗生素时,骨水平和成功率未发现显著差异,尽管其似乎可改善PPD(MD = 1.15mm;95%置信区间0.31 - 1.99)和PAL(MD = 1.10mm;95%置信区间0.13 - 2.08)。在本评价的局限性范围内,辅助局部应用抗生素在成功率、PPD和BOP方面显示出更好的结局,而辅助全身应用抗生素仅改善了PPD和PAL。使用辅助局部抗生素时种植体周围炎的缓解率约为20% - 30%,而使用辅助全身抗生素时其范围为2%至65%。研究结果仍存在争议,因为这些研究数量较少、异质性高、存在不确定或高偏倚风险且纳入患者数量较少。非手术清创和维持性牙周支持治疗仍然至关重要,即使考虑到对抗生素耐药性的日益关注,也不能常规推荐将抗生素作为种植体周围炎的辅助治疗。