Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32418012›Full record

SynthesisClinical oral investigations2020

Efficacy of growth factors for the treatment of peri-implant diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Ismael Khouly, Simon Pardiñas-López, Ryan Richard Ruff, Franz-Josef Strauss

Registry-linked trialAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Clinical oral investigations, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04769609 (Reconstructive Surgical Therapy of Peri-implantitis), which is not on this map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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.

NCT04769609 completednot on this map

Reconstructive Surgical Therapy of Peri-implantitis: 3-year Results of a Randomized Clinical Trial

TypeobservationalSponsorGazi UniversityRan2020 to 2021Enrolled52ConditionsPeri-ImplantitisArmsbioresorbable membrane
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Ismael KhoulyBluestone Center for Clinical Research, New York University College of Dentistry, 421 First Avenue - BCCR 2W, New York, NY, 10010, USA. dr.ismaelkhouly@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8761-2533
Simon Pardiñas-LópezBluestone Center for Clinical Research, New York University College of Dentistry, 421 First Avenue - BCCR 2W, New York, NY, 10010, USA.
Ryan Richard RuffDepartment of Epidemiology & Health Promotion, New York University College of Dentistry, New York, NY, USA.
Franz-Josef StraussDepartment of Oral Biology, School of Dentistry, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5832-7327

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis on the efficacy of growth factors (GF) on clinical outcomes after treatment (surgical/non-surgical) of peri-implant diseases (peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis). MATERIALS AND

methodsA protocol was developed to answer the following focused question: Is there any difference for the use of GF for treatment of peri-implant diseases versus comparative GF treatment or without GF? Electronic database and manual searches were independently conducted to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Publications were selected based on eligibility criteria and then assessed for risk-of-bias using the Cochrane Handbook. The primary outcome was probing depth (PD) and bleeding on probing (BOP) reduction along with changes in vertical defect depth (VDD). Changes in clinical attachment level, gingival recession, and plaque index, among others, were studied as secondary outcomes. Based on primary outcomes, random-effects meta-analysis was conducted.

resultsA total of five RCTs were included. GF enhance the reduction of PD (standardized mean difference (SMD) = - 1.28; 95% confidence interval (CI) - 1.75, - 0.79; p = < 0.0001) and BOP (SMD = - 1.23; 95% CI - 1.70, - 0.76; p = < 0.0001) in the management of peri-implant mucositis. For the treatment of peri-implantitis, the use of GF yielded to significantly greater improvement in VDD (SMD = 0.68; 95% CI 0.22, 1.14; p = 0.004); however, there were no significant differences in terms of PD (SMD = 0.08; 95% CI - 1.08, 1.26; p = 0.887) and BOP (SMD = 0.211; 95% CI - 0.20, 0.63; p = 0.317). The overall risk of bias of the included studies was low to unclear.

conclusionThe results of the present systematic review suggest that the addition of GF might enhance the outcomes in the treatment of peri-implant mucositis. However, there is a lack of evidence for supporting additional benefit of GF managing peri-implantitis. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Within the limitations of the current systematic review and based on the meta-analyses, (1) the addition of GF for the treatment peri-implant mucositis might be associated with better outcomes in terms of PD and BOP, and (2) an additional benefit of GF for the treatment peri-implantitis could not be determined on the basis of the selected evidence.

Indexed as

Dental ImplantsPeri-ImplantitisStomatitisHumansDental ImplantsGrowth factorsPeri-implant diseasesPeri-implantitisPeri-implant mucositis

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.