School of Stomatology, Dalian Medical University, Dalian, China.
Academician Laboratory of Immune and Oral Development & Regeneration, Dalian Medical University, Dalian, China.
PLoS One. 2024 Aug 14;19(8):e0305342. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0305342. eCollection 2024.
This network meta-analysis aims to compare the clinical efficacy of seven non-surgical therapies for peri-implant disease, including laser treatment, photobiomodulation therapy (PBMT), photodynamic therapy (PDT), systemic antibiotics (SA), probiotics, local antimicrobials (LA), and air-powder polishing (APP) combined with mechanical debridement (MD). We conducted searches in four electronic databases, namely PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and The Cochrane Library, to identify randomized controlled trials of non-surgical treatments combined with MD for individuals (aged at least 18 years) diagnosed with peri-implantitis or peri-implant mucositis with a minimum of 3 months follow-up. The outcomes of the study were the reduction in pocket probing depth (PPD) and bleeding on probing (BoP), plaque index (PLI), clinical attachment level (CAL), and marginal bone loss (MBL). We employed a frequency random effects network meta-analysis model to combine the effect sizes of the trials using standardized mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Network meta-analyses include network plots, paired comparison forest plots, league tables, funnel plots, surface under the cumulative ranking area (SUCRA) plots, and sensitivity analysis plots. The results showed that, for peri-implantitis, PBMT +MD demonstrated the highest effect in improving PPD (SUCRA = 75.3%), SA +MD showed the highest effect in improving CAL (SUCRA = 87.4%, SMD = 2.20, and 95% CI: 0.38 to 4.02) and MBL (SUCRA = 99.9%, SMD = 3.92, and 95% CI. 2.90 to 4.93), compared to MD alone. For peri-implant mucositis, probiotics +MD demonstrated the highest effect in improving PPD (SUCRA = 100%) and PLI (SUCRA = 83.2%), SA +MD showed the highest effect in improving BoP (SUCRA = 88.1%, SMD = 0.77, and 95% CI: 0.27 to 1.28), compared to MD alone. Despite the ranking established by our study in the treatment of peri-implant disease, decisions should still be made with reference to the latest treatment guidelines. There is still a need for more high-quality studies to provide conclusive evidence and especially a need for studies regarding direct comparisons between multiple treatment options.
本网络荟萃分析旨在比较 7 种非手术治疗方法治疗种植体周围疾病的临床疗效,包括激光治疗、光生物调节疗法(PBMT)、光动力疗法(PDT)、全身抗生素(SA)、益生菌、局部抗菌剂(LA)和空气-粉末抛光(APP)联合机械清创(MD)。我们在四个电子数据库中进行了检索,包括 PubMed、Embase、Web of Science 和 The Cochrane Library,以确定非手术治疗联合 MD 治疗个体(年龄至少 18 岁)的种植体周围炎或种植体周围黏膜炎的随机对照试验,随访时间至少为 3 个月。该研究的结局指标为探诊深度(PPD)和探诊出血(BoP)、菌斑指数(PLI)、临床附着水平(CAL)和边缘骨丧失(MBL)的减少。我们采用频率随机效应网络荟萃分析模型,使用标准化均数差(SMD)和 95%置信区间(CI)对试验的效应大小进行合并。网络荟萃分析包括网络图、配对比较森林图、联赛表、漏斗图、累积排序曲线下面积(SUCRA)图和敏感性分析图。结果显示,对于种植体周围炎,PBMT+MD 在改善 PPD 方面效果最佳(SUCRA = 75.3%),SA+MD 在改善 CAL(SUCRA = 87.4%,SMD = 2.20,95%CI:0.38 至 4.02)和 MBL(SUCRA = 99.9%,SMD = 3.92,95%CI:2.90 至 4.93)方面效果最佳,与单独 MD 相比。对于种植体周围黏膜炎,益生菌+MD 在改善 PPD(SUCRA = 100%)和 PLI(SUCRA = 83.2%)方面效果最佳,SA+MD 在改善 BoP(SUCRA = 88.1%,SMD = 0.77,95%CI:0.27 至 1.28)方面效果最佳,与单独 MD 相比。尽管我们的研究在种植体周围疾病的治疗中建立了排名,但决策仍应参考最新的治疗指南。仍需要更多高质量的研究提供确凿的证据,特别是需要研究多种治疗方案之间的直接比较。