The International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants, 5/2022
Lin, Cho-Ying / Chen, Zhaozhao / Chiang, Hong-Lin / Pan, Whei-Lin / Wang, Hom-Lay
Seite 859 – 868
Purpose: To investigate the impact of implantoplasty (IP) with or without regenerative procedures on treatment outcomes of peri-implantitis.
Materials and Methods: Electronic and manual literature searches were conducted for clinical trials published up to October 2020 that evaluated clinical outcomes (at least 6-month follow-up) after peri-implantitis treatment involving IP. The implant survival rate and clinical parameters (eg, probing depth [PD], bleeding on probing [BOP], marginal bone loss [MBL], clinical attachment level [CAL], and mucosal recession [REC]) at baseline and follow-ups were extracted from original articles for qualitative analyses. Risk ratio and weighted mean difference with 95% CI were calculated using a random-effects model.
Results: Out of 322 studies, 17 (9 randomized controlled trials, 4 controlled clinical trials, and 4 case series) were included in the present study. The regeneration group presented a 97% (95% CI: 0.95 to 1.00) implant survival rate, and the nonregeneration group showed a 94% (95% CI: 0.90 to 0.98) survival rate. Both groups revealed similar outcomes in PD and BOP reductions and soft tissue REC. However, the regeneration group had more favorable results in MBL.
Conclusion: Data from this study suggested that applying implantoplasty during a regeneration or nonregeneration surgical approach resulted in a high implant survival rate and peri-implantitis resolution. Although no differences were found in the majority of clinical parameters in both groups, the regenerative approach resulted in more radiographic bone fill than the nonregenerative treatment.