SynthesisOral and maxillofacial surgery2026
Diagnostic value of MMP-8, IL-1β and IL-6 in peri-implantitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Oral and maxillofacial surgery, 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAlthough MMP-8, IL-1β, and IL-6 have been implicated in peri-implantitis, their diagnostic accuracy for detecting peri-implantitis has not been systematically quantified. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of matrix metalloproteinase-8 (MMP-8), interleukin-1β (IL-1β), and interleukin-6 (IL-6) for the detection of peri-implantitis, and to compare their levels between peri-implantitis patients and healthy controls.
methodsA comprehensive literature search was conducted across English and Chinese Database up to May 1st, 2026. Studies reporting diagnostic accuracy data or biomarker concentrations for MMP-8, IL-1β, or IL-6 were included. Pooled standardized mean differences (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated using a random-effects model. Diagnostic performance was assessed to pool sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios, diagnostic odds ratio, and area under the curve (AUC). Heterogeneity was evaluated using I² statistics, and publication bias was assessed using Egger's test.
resultsTwenty-five studies were included. Meta-analysis showed significantly elevated levels of MMP-8 (SMD = 1.80; 95% CI: 0.88-2.71), IL-1β (SMD = 2.07; 95% CI: 1.36-2.78), and IL-6 (SMD = 1.53; 95% CI: 0.89-2.17) in peri-implantitis patients compared to healthy controls. For diagnostic accuracy, MMP-8 demonstrated a pooled sensitivity of 0.83 (95% CI: 0.76-0.98), specificity of 0.80 (95% CI: 0.61-0.91), and AUC of 0.84 (95% CI: 0.80-0.87). IL-1β showed a sensitivity of 0.72 (95% CI: 0.63-0.80), specificity of 0.75 (95% CI: 0.67-0.81), and AUC of 0.79 (95% CI: 0.75-0.82). Leave-one-out sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness of all pooled estimates.
conclusionsMMP-8 and IL-1β demonstrate moderate-to-good diagnostic accuracy for peri-implantitis, supporting their potential role as adjunctive diagnostic tools. However, substantial heterogeneity, lack of standardized cutoff thresholds, and the presence of publication bias limit the certainty of evidence. Further prospective studies with standardized methodologies and externally validated thresholds are warranted before clinical implementation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42671640What 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.