ArticleBMC oral health2026
Biofluorescence imaging-guided implantoplasty for the management of peri-implantitis: a retrospective case series.
Article in BMC oral health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPeri-implantitis is a biofilm-driven inflammatory condition that often requires surgical intervention. This case series aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes of implantoplasty guided by a biofluorescence imaging system (BIS) in the surgical treatment of peri-implantitis.
methodsSeven patients (13 implants) with peri-implantitis underwent BIS-guided flap surgery and selective implantoplasty. Probing depth (PD) and bleeding on probing (BOP) were assessed at baseline, and at 1, 3, and 6 months postoperatively, as well as at the final follow-up. Nonparametric statistical analyses were used to evaluate longitudinal changes across time points.
resultsA total of 7 patients (3 males and 4 females; mean age 71.9 ± 10.0 years) with 13 implants diagnosed with peri‑implantitis were included. The mean follow‑up period was 9.9 ± 2.7 months. The mean PD significantly decreased from 6.8 ± 1.5 mm at baseline to 3.0 ± 1.4 mm at the final follow‑up (p < 0.001), and BOP was completely resolved in all implants. All implants remained clinically stable, with no complications or recurrence.
conclusionsBIS enabled the accurate identification of mature biofilm and facilitated site‑specific, conservative decontamination. This selective approach, which targets infected surfaces while preserving implant structure, may be clinically advantageous for peri‑implantitis management. Further randomized controlled trials are warranted to validate these findings.
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.