ArticleEvidence-based dentistry2021
Do adjunctive antimicrobials improve the outcome of non-surgical peri-implantitis treatment?
Article in Evidence-based dentistry, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Design This study was a single-centre, single-blind, controlled parallel group randomised control trial.Case selection Participants included those referred to The Hague Clinic for Periodontology in the Netherlands. The selection criteria included patients diagnosed with peri-implantitis, defined as marginal bone loss of >2 mm in addition to bleeding or suppuration on probing and a probing depth of >5 mm. The study was carried out over seven years and involved a control group (full mouth non-surgical peri-implantitis treatment) and a test group (non-surgical peri-implantitis treatment combined with systemic antimicrobials). Data analysis Sixty patients were recruited (30 allocated to each group) and 57 completed follow-up and were analysed according to the intention to treat principle. The patients were reviewed monthly and clinical data according to the parameters being measured were recorded. Microbiological analysis was also carried out. The power calculation was based upon the primary outcome measure of interest: bleeding on probing (BoP).Results The primary outcome parameter being measured was change in full mouth BoP and this study concluded that there were no significant differences in bleeding scores between the control and intervention at three months post-treatment. Secondary outcome parameters being measured included full mouth peri-implant and periodontal plaque scores (PS, %), clinical attachment levels, suppuration scores (SS, %), mean probing depths, mean peri-implant bone levels, change in detection frequency of periodontal pathogen species over the study duration, adverse event occurrence and need for additional surgical treatment. No significant differences were noted between the two groups for any clinical parameter.Conclusions Antimicrobial therapy does not lead to improved patient outcomes in terms of reducing microbial load and reducing pocket depth. Based on this study, there is inadequate evidence to support the use of adjunctive antimicrobials for the non-surgical treatment of peri-implantitis.
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.