ReviewDentistry journal2020
Management of Peri-Implantitis Lesions without the Use of Systemic Antibiotics: A Systematic Review.
Review in Dentistry journal, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Erythritol air polishing in the surgical treatment of peri-implantitis: A randomized controlled trial.Clinical oral implants research · 2022Trial
- The clinical effect of sodium hypochlorite oral rinse on peri-implantitis lesion: A pilot study.Heliyon · 2023Article
- Local and Systemic Antibiotics in Peri-Implantitis Management: An Umbrella Review.Antibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Impact of Smoking Habit on Peri-Implant Indicators following Different Therapies: A Systematic Review.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- Latest Trends in Surface Modification for Dental Implantology: Innovative Developments and Analytical Applications.Pharmaceutics · 2022Review
- Impact of physical decontamination methods on zirconia implant surface and subsequent bacterial adhesion: An in-vitro study.Clinical and experimental dental research · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThis systematic review aims to assess the current evidence on the efficacy of surgical and non-surgical debridement techniques in the treatment of peri-implantitis lesions without the use of any antimicrobials.
methodFive electronic databases (MEDLINE, Pubmed, Scopus, CINAHL and Cochrane) were used, alongside hand searches, to find relevant articles. Full-text articles that were randomised controlled trials, published in the English language from 2011 onwards without pre-operative, peri-operative and post-operative antibiotic usage were included. The study was conducted according to the latest Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)-P protocols, the latest Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and each investigated intervention was evaluated using the grading of recommendation, assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) system.
resultsThe search yielded 2718 results. After initial screening, 38 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility. From these, 11 studies satisfied all inclusion criteria. These 11 articles described six non-surgical and five surgical debridement therapies. Most articles were classified as having either a high risk of bias or presenting with some concerns. Small sample sizes, in combination with this risk of bias, meant that all interventions were adjudged to be of either low or very low quality of evidence.
conclusionWhile all investigated modalities displayed some sort of efficacy, this review suggests that a surgical approach may be best suited to treating peri-implantitis lesions in the absence of antibiotic therapy. Despite this weak indication, further research is required in this field.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.