Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39969657›Full record

Trial reportClinical oral investigations2025

A randomised clinical trial comparing a surgical approach for treatment of peri-implantitis to non-surgical debridement with adjunctive diode laser therapy.

Dena Hashim, Delphine Courvoisier, Norbert Cionca

Abstract readRandomized Controlled TrialComparative Study
In one paragraph

Trial report in Clinical oral investigations, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–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.

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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. 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

3 authors.

Dena HashimDivision of Regenerative Dental Medicine and Periodontology, University Clinics of Dental Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Geneva, 1 Rue Michel-Servet, CH-1211, Geneva 4, Switzerland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0490-028X
Delphine CourvoisierUniversity Hospitals of Geneva HUG, Rue Gabrielle-Perret-Gentil 4, CH-1205, Geneva, Switzerland.
Norbert CioncaDivision of Regenerative Dental Medicine and Periodontology, University Clinics of Dental Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Geneva, 1 Rue Michel-Servet, CH-1211, Geneva 4, Switzerland. norbert.cionca@unige.ch.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo evaluate the efficacy of non-surgical debridement with repeated diode laser application in comparison to surgical treatment for management of peri-implantitis. MATERIALS AND

methodsForty patients diagnosed with peri-implantitis were randomised into two groups. The test group received mechanical debridement and repeated diode laser therapy at Days 0, 7 and 14. The control group received mechanical debridement at Day 0 followed by surgical treatment at Day 14. Clinical evaluations were performed at baseline, 3 and 12 months.

resultsThirty-six participants (test n = 17, control n = 19) completed the 12-month observation period. Laser treatment failed in 4 cases (23.5%); of which 3 implants lost osseointegration and one necessitated surgical treatment due to progressively increasing probing depths (PD) and bone loss. In comparison, the control group showed a 100% survival rate with a statistically significant difference between the two groups (p = 0.04). Therefore, thirty-two participants were examined at the final evaluation (test n = 13, control n = 19). Twenty-two implants (57.9%) showed complete disease resolution without significant differences between the groups. The test group reported significantly lower post-operative discomfort on the visual analogue scale (VAS). At 3 months, both groups showed clinical signs of healing with reduction in probing depths (PD) and bleeding upon probing. Surgical treatment resulted in significantly lower PDs (control 3.7 mm [3.2, 4.0], test 4.5 mm [3.8, 4.8]), but recession was significantly higher (control 0.5 mm [0.3, 1.2], test 0 mm [0.0, 0.3]). At the final reevaluation, PD values remained significantly lower in the control group; 3.3 mm [3.1, 3.9] compared to 4.3 mm [3.7, 4.8] for the test group, but the difference in mucosal recession fell below the level of significance. Marginal bone levels improved after one year without significant differences between the two groups (Test = 3.5 mm [2.8, 4.6] at baseline and 1.5 mm [1.0, 4.4] at one year, Control = 2.8 mm [2.5, 3.1] at baseline and 1.4 mm [1.0, 2.6] at one year).

conclusionSurgical approaches for management of peri-implantitis demonstrated significant benefits over laser therapy in terms of treatment success and PD reduction. Nevertheless, diode laser therapy, as described in this study, could represent a minimally invasive alternative for treatment of non-advanced peri-implantitis defects.

Indexed as

DebridementLasers, SemiconductorPeri-ImplantitisPeriodontal DebridementAgedCombined Modality TherapyFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedTreatment OutcomeClinical trialDental implantsDiode laserLaser therapyPeri-implantitisSurgeryTherapeuticsTreatment outcome

Identifiers

PMID39969657
PMCPMC11839896

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.