Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40956455›Full record

SynthesisLasers in medical science2025

Efficacy of photodynamic therapy with various photosensitizers for peri-implantitis treatment: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.

Xin Li, Hang Liu, Lian Yang, Yiming Ji, Dingli Feng, Ruiqi Shao, Guanhua Zhang, Shichen Lin, Shaoyu Duan, Xue Wu

Abstract readSystematic ReviewMeta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Lasers in medical science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
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

10 authors.

Xin LiDepartment of Stomatology, Electric Power Teaching Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Hang LiuDepartment of Stomatology, Electric Power Teaching Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Lian YangDepartment of Stomatology, Electric Power Teaching Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Yiming JiDepartment of Stomatology, Electric Power Teaching Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Dingli FengDepartment of Stomatology, Electric Power Teaching Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Ruiqi ShaoDepartment of Stomatology, Electric Power Teaching Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Guanhua ZhangDepartment of Stomatology, Electric Power Teaching Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Shichen LinDepartment of Stomatology, Electric Power Teaching Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Shaoyu DuanDepartment of Stomatology, Electric Power Teaching Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Xue WuDepartment of Stomatology, Electric Power Teaching Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China. musi0923@126.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To systematically evaluate the efficacy of photodynamic therapy in treating peri-implantitis and compare the effectiveness of various photosensitizers based on randomized clinical trials. A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, incorporating data from PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and CNKI up to December 31, 2024. Randomized clinical trials that assessed the efficacy of photodynamic therapy with various photosensitizers for peri-implantitis were included. Primary outcomes included bleeding on probing, probing depth, plaque index, clinical attachment level, crestal bone loss, and bleeding index. Standardized mean differences (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated for each outcome to quantify the effect size. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool. 13 randomized clinical trials involving 678 participants were included in the analysis. Photodynamic therapy significantly improved several clinical outcomes compared to controls: bleeding on probing (SMD = -0.49, 95% CI: -0.89 to -0.09), probing depth (SMD = -1.49, 95% CI: -2.31 to -0.66), plaque index (SMD = -1.11, 95% CI: -1.98 to -0.25), and crestal bone loss (SMD = -0.53, 95% CI: -0.89 to -0.17). Subgroup analyses revealed that Toluidine Blue was the most effective photosensitizer, showing superior improvements across multiple outcomes. Photodynamic therapy is an effective treatment for peri-implantitis, particularly when using Toluidine Blue, which consistently outperformed other photosensitizers in improving clinical outcomes. These findings provide strong evidence for integrating photodynamic therapy into peri-implantitis management protocols, offering a promising, minimally invasive alternative to conventional treatments. Future studies should focus on optimizing photodynamic therapy protocols, assessing long-term outcomes, and evaluating its effectiveness in diverse patient populations.Clinical trial number: PROSPERO (CRD42024600326).

Indexed as

Peri-ImplantitisPhotochemotherapyPhotosensitizing AgentsHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTreatment OutcomePhotosensitizing AgentsClinical outcomesImplant dentistryMeta-analysisPeri-implantitisPhotodynamic therapyPhotosensitizersToluidine blue

Identifiers

PMID40956455
PMCPMC12441095

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.