ReviewBiomaterial investigations in dentistry2026
Clinical efficacy of hyaluronic acid in peri-implantitis treatment: a systematic review of clinical, radiographic, and biological outcomes.
Review in Biomaterial investigations in dentistry, 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This systematic review evaluated the impact of adjunctive hyaluronic acid (HA) on outcomes in the management of peri-implantitis, while characterizing the various protocols and formulations. Materials and methods: In accordance with the PRISMA 2020 guidelines, a search was conducted across five databases up to February 10, 2025 to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and non-randomized clinical studies including controlled studies and case series. A dual-pass screening and data extraction process was employed to ensure data accuracy. The risk of bias was evaluated using Cochrane Risk of Bias 2, Risk of Bias in Non-Randomized Studies of Interventions-I, and Joanna Briggs Institute tools. The certainty of evidence for key outcomes was graded with the GRADE approach. Results: Six studies (four RCTs, one controlled pilot study with a split-mouth design, and one prospective case series) with 110 patients were included; sample sizes ranged from 5 to 63 participants, and follow-up periods ranged from 15 days to 12 months. The findings were heterogeneous; while some studies demonstrated statistically significant improvements in probing pocket depth (PPD) and bleeding on probing (BOP), other studies reported no significant difference compared to controls. Marginal bone loss (MBL) outcomes were inconsistent. HA demonstrated an anti-inflammatory effect by reducing interleukin-1 beta levels and showed some benefits against the peri-implantitis-associated bacterial community. Conclusion: Adjunctive HA is associated with favorable effects on PPD and BOP, but with a low certainty of evidence, and may have a benefit in decreasing the levels of early-colonizing bacteria. Significant improvement in MBL was associated only with surgical approaches but with a very low certainty of evidence. The high degree of heterogeneity in study design, HA formulations, and treatment protocols, coupled with a high risk of bias, makes it difficult to draw a definitive conclusion. Well-designed RCTs are required to establish the clinical role of HA in the management 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.