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.
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.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Hypericin-Mediated Antimicrobial Photodynamic Therapy in Dentistry: A Systematic Review of Applications Against Oral Biofilms and Infections.Pharmaceutics · 2026Review
- Effectiveness of Natural Photosensitizers in Antimicrobial Photodynamic Therapy Within Dentistry: A Systematic Review of RCTs.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.