Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27833740›Full record

ReviewJournal of oral & maxillofacial research

Surgical Regenerative Treatments for Peri-Implantitis: Meta-analysis of Recent Findings in a Systematic Literature Review.

Povilas Daugela, Marco Cicciù, Nikola Saulacic

Open access · diamondAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of oral & maxillofacial research. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed
6.9field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

27 citing papers in PubMed, 66 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Peri-Implantitis.Dentistry journal · 2024
    Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Povilas DaugelaDepartment of Maxillofacial Surgery, Lithuanian University of Health Sciences, Kaunas Lithuania.
Marco CicciùHuman Pathology Department, Messina University, Messina Italy.
Nikola SaulacicDepartment of Cranio-Maxillofacial Surgery, Faculty of Medicine, University of Bern, Bern Switzerland.
Lithuanian University of Health Sciences · LTUniversity of Messina · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe purpose of the present study was to systematically review the literature on the surgical regenerative treatment of the peri-implantitis and to determine an effective therapeutic predictable option for their clinical management. MATERIAL AND

methodsThe study searched MEDLINE and EMBASE databases from 2006 to 2016. Clinical human studies that had reported changes in probing depth (PD) and/or bleeding on probing (BOP) and/or radiologic marginal bone level (RBL) changes after peri-implantitis surgical treatment at 12-month follow-up or longer were included accordingly to PRISMA guidelines.

resultsThe initial search obtained 883 citations. After screening and determination of eligibility, 18 articles were included in the review. The meta-analysis of selected studies revealed that the weighted mean RBL fill was 1.97 mm (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.58 to 2.35 mm), PD reduction was 2.78 mm (95% CI = 2.31 to 3.25 mm), and BOP reduced by 52.5% (95% CI = 41.6 to 63.1%). Defect fill in studies using and not using barrier membranes for graft coverage was 1.86 mm (95% CI = 1.36 to 2.36 mm) and 2.12 mm (95% CI = 1.46 to 2.78 mm) correspondingly. High heterogeneity among the studies regarding defects morphology, surgical protocols, and selection of biomaterials were found.

conclusionsAll included studies underlined an improvement of clinical conditions after the surgical regenerative treatment of peri-implantitis, however, there is a lack of scientific evidence in the literature regarding the superiority of the regenerative versus non-regenerative surgical treatment. The presence of a barrier membrane or submergence in the regenerative procedure does not seem to be fundamental in order to obtain clinical success of the surgery.

Indexed as

alveolar bone graftingalveolar bone lossbiocompatible materialsbone regenerationoral surgeryperi-implantitis

Identifiers

PMID27833740
PMCPMC5100640
OpenAlexW2524580268

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.