Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33590365›Full record

ArticleLasers in medical science2021

Network meta-analysis of the treatment efficacy of different lasers for peri-implantitis.

Meng-Long Hu, Gang Zheng, Hong Lin, Nan Li, Peng-Fei Zhao, Jian-Min Han

Abstract readNetwork Meta-Analysis
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Lasers in medical science, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Meng-Long HuDental Medical Devices Testing Center, Dental Materials Laboratory, Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology, 22 Zhongguancun Avenue South, Haidian District, Beijing, 100081, China.
Gang ZhengDental Medical Devices Testing Center, Dental Materials Laboratory, Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology, 22 Zhongguancun Avenue South, Haidian District, Beijing, 100081, China.
Hong LinDental Medical Devices Testing Center, Dental Materials Laboratory, Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology, 22 Zhongguancun Avenue South, Haidian District, Beijing, 100081, China.
Nan LiDental Medical Devices Testing Center, Dental Materials Laboratory, Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology, 22 Zhongguancun Avenue South, Haidian District, Beijing, 100081, China.
Peng-Fei ZhaoDepartment of Prosthodontics, West China Hospital of Stomatology, Sichuan University, No. 14, Section 3, South Renmin Road, Chengdu, 610041, China.
Jian-Min HanDental Medical Devices Testing Center, Dental Materials Laboratory, Peking University School and Hospital of Stomatology, 22 Zhongguancun Avenue South, Haidian District, Beijing, 100081, China. dentalhan@126.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6053-873X
Peking University · CNKing University · USSichuan University · CN

Funding

National Natural Science Foundation of China 81771119
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The aim of this study was comparing different lasers with conventional non-surgical treatment (CNT) for the management of peri-implantitis, regarding probing depth (PD), plaque index (PLI), clinical attachment level (CAL), and sulcus bleeding index (SBI). Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on different lasers and CNT for peri-implantitis were searched. Pairwise and network meta-analyses were performed to analyze the PD, PLI, CAL, and SBI outcomes. The risk of bias, evidence quality, statistical heterogeneity, and ranking probability were also evaluated. Eleven studies were included in this study, involving three types of lasers. Diode + CNT had significantly superior efficacy to CNT alone, regarding PD reduction, while Er:YAG + CNT had significantly superior efficacy than CNT in terms of the PLI, CAL, and SBI. The highest probability of being most effective for PD was diode + CNT (49%), while Er:YAG + CNT had the highest probability of improving the PLI, CAL, and SBI (66%, 53%, and 79%, respectively). Diode + CNT was significantly superior for PD management in peri-implantitis compared with CNT alone, while Er:YAG + CNT significantly improved the PLI, CAL, and SBI. Therefore, Er:YAG + CNT might be recommended methods considered for management of peri-implantitis.

Indexed as

LasersAdultDental Plaque IndexHemorrhageHumansPeri-ImplantitisProbabilityPublication BiasRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicRiskTreatment OutcomeConventional non-surgical treatmentLasersNetwork meta-analysisPeri-implantitisRandomized controlled trial

Identifiers

PMID33590365
OpenAlexW3132871261

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.