Effect of antimicrobial photodynamic therapy in open flap debridement in the treatment of peri-implantitis: A randomized controlled trial

Effectiveness of antimicrobial photodynamic therapy in the treatment of peri-implantitis: systematic review and meta-analysis

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the current scientific evidence on the effectiveness of antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) as an adjunctive treatment to mechanical debridement in the treatment of peri-implantitis. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses was followed. A protocol was registered in the International Prospective Registry of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO #CRD42022361684). The search was carried out in seven databases, with no restrictions regarding language or year of publication. Our work included studies that compared clinical periodontal parameters between individuals treated with mechanical debridement associated with aPDT and a control group of patients who had undergone mechanical debridement alone. Study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment (RoB 2.0) were performed by two review authors. Meta-analysis was performed. The mean difference (MD) and a 95% confidence interval (CI) were provided. Four hundred and seven-four studies were identified, of which five studies were included. The meta-analysis demonstrated that aPDT adjunctive to mechanical debridement in subjects with peri-implantitis resulted in greater reduction in probing depth 3 months after treatment than among subjects receiving treatment with mechanical debridement. Most of the included studies exhibit a low risk of bias. Adjunctive aPDT to mechanical debridement contributes to the improvement of peri-implant clinical parameters in individuals with peri-implantitis, in particular probing depth.

Comparative effectiveness of interventions for the treatment of peri-implantitis: A systematic review with network meta-analysis

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM

Extensive research has been carried out on the various aspects of diagnosing and treating peri-implantitis. However, clinical guidelines for the management of peri-implantitis based on high quality evidence are lacking.

PURPOSE

The purpose of this systematic review with network meta-analysis was to analyze the current evidence on nonsurgical and surgical interventions for the treatment of peri-implantitis and synthesize clinical guidelines based on high quality evidence.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A search was conducted for trials published in Medline, Scopus, PubMed, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from inception until July 2023. The study was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) (CRD42023451056). A network meta-analysis was performed on data from randomized controlled trials that assessed nonsurgical and surgical interventions for the treatment of peri-implantitis. The interventions were ranked according to their efficacy using surface under the cumulative ranking (SUCRA) system. The grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluations (GRADE) approach was used to assess the level of certainty of evidence.

RESULTS

A total of 45 articles were included in the quantitative analysis. The GRADE approach determined a moderate to high level of certainty of evidence. Among the nonsurgical interventions, mechanical debridement with adjunctive systemic antibiotics was significant in improving probing depth at 3 months and beyond 6 months, clinical attachment loss at 3 months, and clinical attachment loss beyond 6 months. Mechanical debridement with adjunctive topical antibiotics was significant in improving probing depth beyond 6 months, clinical attachment loss at 3 months, clinical attachment loss beyond 6 months, and radiographic bone loss beyond 6 months. Mechanical debridement with adjunctive photodynamic therapy was significant in improving probing depth beyond 6 months, clinical attachment loss at 3 months, clinical attachment loss beyond 6 months, and radiographic bone loss beyond 6 months. Mechanical debridement with adjunctive systemic antibiotics and photodynamic therapy was significant in improving probing depth beyond 6 months. Among surgical interventions, open flap debridement with implant surface decontamination and open flap debridement with decontamination and adjunctive photodynamic therapy were significant in improving probing depth at 3 months.

CONCLUSIONS

Mechanical debridement with adjunctive systemic antibiotics or photodynamic therapy results in improved clinical outcomes.

Adhesive Bond Strength of Restorative Materials to Caries-Affected Dentin Treated with Antimicrobial Photodynamic Therapy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Objective: This systematic review aimed to evaluate the adhesive bond strength of restorative materials to caries-affected dentin (CAD) treated with antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) in comparison with conventional chemical disinfectants. Methods: Three databases, including the Web of Science, Scopus, and PubMed, were searched to address the focused question: "What is the effect of aPDT compared to conventional chemical disinfection techniques on the adhesive bond strength of restorative materials to CAD?." Search keywords included "dentin*" "adhes bond*" "caries-affected dentin" "photodynamic "photochemotherapy" "photosensitizing agent" "phototherapy" "photoradiation" "laser" "light activated" "photoactivated." A fixed-effects model was used in each meta-analysis and the inverse variance was used to calculate the standard mean difference (SMD). For evaluating the statistical heterogeneity, the Cochrane's Q test and the I2 statistics were used. The risk of bias was evaluated based on the Cochrane Collaboration's tool. Results: Fourteen studies were included in the qualitative as well as quantitative analysis. The results of the meta-analyses exhibited an SMD of 2.38% [95% confidence interval (CI): 2.03-2.73; p < 0.00001], indicating a statistically significant difference in the shear bond strength scores between the tested group (samples treated with aPDT) and the control group (i.e., favoring the sound dentin and/or conventional chemical disinfectants). Contrarily, an SMD of -1.46% (95% CI: -2.04 to -0.88; p < 0.00001) and -0.37% (95% CI: -0.70 to -0.03; p = 0.03) was observed, indicating a statistically significant difference in the microtensile bond strength (μTBS), as well as microleakage scores between the tested group (favoring the samples treated with aPDT) and the control group (i.e., sound dentin and/or conventional chemical disinfectants). Conclusions: Adhesive bond strength of restorative materials to CAD treated with conventional chemical disinfectants showed superior outcomes compared to photodynamic therapy (aPDT).

Antimicrobial photodynamic therapy for managing the peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis: A systematic review of randomized clinical trials

BACKGROUND

The presence of peri‑implant inflammation including peri‑implant mucositis and peri‑implantitis, is a crucial factor that impacts the long-term stability and success of dental implants. This review aimed to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) as an adjuvant therapy option for managing peri‑implant mucositis and peri‑implantitis.

METHODS

We systematically searched the PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Google Scholar databases (no time limitation). The review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, and the quality of the studies was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration tool.

RESULTS

Of 322 eligible articles, 14 studies were included in this review. The heterogeneity and poor quality of the articles reviewed prevented a meta-analysis. The reviewed articles used a light source (60 s, 1 session) with a wavelength of 635 to 810 nm for optimal tissue penetration. These studies showed improved clinical parameters such as probing depth, bleeding on probing (BOP), and plaque index after aPDT treatment. However, in smokers, BOP increased after aPDT. Compared to conventional therapy, aPDT had a longer-term antimicrobial effect and reduced periopathogens like Porphyromonas gingivalis, as well as inflammatory factors such as Interleukin (IL)-1β, IL-6, and Tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-α). No undesired side effects were reported in the studies.

CONCLUSION

Although the reviewed articles had limitations, aPDT showed effectiveness in improving peri‑implant mucositis and peri‑implantitis. It is recommended as an adjunctive strategy for managing peri‑implant diseases, but further high-quality research is needed for efficacy and long-term outcomes.

Efficacy of Adjunctive Fotoenticine Photodynamic Therapy and Sapindus mukorossi Therapy on Clinical, Radiographic, and Cytokine Profile of Diabetics with Peri-Implantitis

Objective: To evaluate effectiveness of Fotoenticine (FTC)-mediated photodynamic therapy (PDT) and Sapindus mukorossi (SM) as adjunct to mechanical debridement (MD) on peri-implant clinical parameters and levels of proinflammatory cytokines among diabetics. Background: FTC has exhibited robust photodynamic impact against Streptococcus mutans (i.e., an established caries-associated bacterium); however, its efficacy against periodontal pathogens is not known. Methods: One hundred six diabetics with peri-implantitis were randomly categorized into three groups: Group I consisted of 37 participants who were treated with only MD; group II comprised 35 participants who were treated with FTC-mediated PDT, in addition to MD; and group III consisted of 34 participants who were treated with SM, in addition to MD. Peri-implant clinical parameters [plaque index (PI), bleeding on probing (BOP), and probing depth (PD)] and radiographic outcomes [crestal bone loss (CBL)] (PI, BOP, and PD), together with peri-implant sulcular fluid (PISF) interleukin (IL)-1β and IL-6 levels were measured at baseline and 6-month follow-up. Results: In group I (n = 37; 24 males +13 females), group II (n = 35; 20 males +15 females), and group III (n = 34; 17 males +17 females), the mean age of participants was 54.3 ± 4.6, 52.0 ± 5.5, and 50.8 ± 4.5 years, respectively. Significant improvement was observed in the scores of peri-implant PI (p = 0.01), BOP (p = 0.01), and PD (p = 0.02) at the 6-month follow-up among all study groups. Significant improvement in peri-implant CBL among group I subjects at 6-month follow-up compared to baseline (p < 0.05) was observed. PISF levels of IL-1β and IL-6 improved at 6 months. Conclusions: As an adjunct to conventional MD, FTC-mediated PDT and SM might be used as potential therapeutic modalities among diabetics with peri-implantitis.

Diagnosis and Treatment of Periimplant Mucositis and Periimplantitis: An Overview and Related Controversial Issues

Periimplant mucositis and periimplantitis are common complications of dental implant. This article provides a comprehensive overview of the 2017 World Workshop's new definition, clinical and radiographic presentation, pathogenesis, risk factors, and classification of periimplant diseases. Also, the authors discuss various types of instruments, materials, and techniques commonly used for treatment of nonsurgical and surgical periimplantitis. Lastly, the authors include some controversial topics surrounding this subject.

Clinical and radiographic peri-implant outcomes with riboflavin loaded Poly-L-glycolic acid nanoparticles incorporated in aloe-vera gel treating peri-implantitis in chronic hyperglycemic patients

AIM

The objective of the current study was to compare the effectiveness of antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (PDT) versus Poly-L-glycolic acid nanoparticles loaded riboflavin incorporated in aloe vera gel (PGA/RF/AV) on periimplant parameters and bacterial counts in chronic hyperglycemic patients having periimplantitis.

METHODS

One hundred and two diabetic patients undergoing mechanical debridement (MD) were equally divided into three groups: Group 1: PGA/RF/AV+ MD, Group 2: PDT + MD, and Group 3: MD alone. Periimplant parameters [Bleeding on probing (BoP), probing depth (PD), plaque index (PI), marginal bone level (MBL)] were recorded in all three groups. Periimplant plaque samples were studied to record the levels of Tannerella forsythia (Tf) and Porphyromonas gingivalis (Pg). The recordings were taken at baseline, 3 months and 6 months post treatment.

RESULTS

All three groups showed a reduction in severity of periimplantitis measured in terms of PD, PI, MBL and BoP. A statistically significant reduction in PD, PI and MBL was found in patients in Group 2 whereas participants of Group 1 were found to have a significant decrease in BoP. A statistically significant decline in the numbers of both the bacterial species was seen in Group 2 at the three-month follow-up whereas at the six-month follow-up, a statistically significant reduction was observed in treatment Group 2 in the levels of Tf species only.

CONCLUSION

Riboflavin-loaded nanocarrier incorporated in aloe vera gel showed greater clinical efficacy than PDT alone in the treatment of periimplantitis in chronic hyperglycemic individuals.

The effect of photodynamic therapy in controlling the oral biofilm: A comprehensive overview

Several resistance mechanisms are involved in dental caries, including oral biofilms. An accumulation of bacteria on the surface of teeth is called plaque. Periodontitis and gingivitis are caused by dental plaque. In this review article, we aimed to review the studies associated with the application of photodynamic therapy (PDT) to prevent and treat various microbial biofilm-caused oral diseases in recent decades. There are several studies published in PubMed that have described antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (APDT) effects on microorganisms. Several in vitro and in vivo studies have demonstrated the potential of APDT for treating endodontic, periodontal, and mucosal infections caused by bacteria as biofilms. Reactive oxygen species (ROS) are activated in the presence of oxygen by integrating a nontoxic photosensitizer (PS) with appropriate wavelength visible light. By causing irreversible damage to microorganisms, ROS induces some biological and photochemical events. Testing several wavelengths has been conducted to identify potential PS for APDT. A standard protocol is not yet available, and the current review summarizes findings from dental studies on APDT.

Surgical reconstruction of peri-implantitis with adjunctive antimicrobial photodynamic therapy: A case report with 5-year follow-up

BACKGROUND

Peri-implantitis poses a significant challenge in dental implantology due to its potential to result in the loss of supporting tissue around dental implants. Surgical reconstruction is often recommended for intrabony defects, accompanied by various adjunctive therapies, such as antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT), for bacterial decontamination. However, the long-term efficacy of such treatments remains unclear.

METHODS

This clinical report presents a case of peri-implantitis management in a healthy 55-year-old male using guided bone regeneration principles and surface decontamination via aPDT. The patient exhibited peri-implantitis with probing pocket depths (PPD) of 7 mm at buccal sites, 5 mm at palatal sites, and significant bone loss around implant #12. The reconstructive approach involved preservation of the existing implant and following a non-submerged healing protocol. The surgical phase included meticulous debridement, chemical detoxification with hydrogen peroxide, and aPDT using a 670 nm diode laser with methylene blue as the photosensitizer. Xenogenic bone graft and a resorbable collagen membrane were applied and the patient was followed up to through a 5-year period.

RESULTS

Postsurgery the patient exhibited normal healing, and long-term follow-up at 5 years showed reduced PPD (2 mm buccally, 3 mm mid-palatally), complete intrabony defect fill, and stable bone levels, indicating successful treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

This case report demonstrates the potential long-term success of a reconstructive approach with adjunctive aPDT in peri-implantitis management. However, it highlights the need for standardized protocols and further clinical trials to establish the clinical benefits of aPDT in surgical reconstruction of peri-implantitis defects, serving as valuable pilot data for future research.

HIGHLIGHTS

Why is this case new information? Provides a rare 5-year insight into peri-implantitis intrabony defect reconstruction, offering extended success and outcomes not frequently documented. Demonstrates the efficacy of aPDT with a 670-nm diode laser in achieving successful long-term outcomes, contributing valuable evidence to existing literature.Keys to successful management of this case: Success involves initial non-surgical debridement followed by a reconstructive strategy, incorporating guided bone regeneration and surface decontamination via aPDT. Long-term success hinges on patient compliance with routine oral hygiene, emphasizing the importance of adherence to preventive measures post-reconstruction to minimize recurrence risk.What are the primary limitations to success in this case? Variability in photosensitizer uptake, and potential risks such as tissue damage and bacterial resistance pose challenges to the effectiveness of aPDT. The existing literature on aPDT in peri-implantitis treatment lacks standardization in methodology, laser parameters, and follow-up durations, making it challenging to establish a universally accepted protocol.

Evaluating the effect of mechanical debridement with adjunctive antimicrobial photodynamic therapy in comparison with mechanical debridement alone on the peri-implant parameters in type 2 diabetic mellitus patients with peri-implantitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a major risk factor for localized diseases such as peri-implantitis that may affect ideal implant treatment. This study was aimed to evaluate the effect of mechanical debridement (MD) + antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (a-PDT) in patients with peri-implantitis who have T2DM in terms of bleeding on probing (BOP) and probing depth (PD) as primary outcomes and plaque index (PI) and crestal bone loss (CBL) as secondary outcomes.

METHODS

Publications compared outcomes between MD + aPDT and MD alone in T2DM patients with peri-implantitis, containing more than 3-month follow-up duration, were involved in the systematic review and meta-analysis. Literature until July 2023 using MEDLINE (through PubMed), Scopus, Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, and Google Scholar were collected.

RESULTS

Two randomized controlled trials (RCTs, 88 individuals) and one controlled clinical trial (CCT, 67 individuals) with follow-up periods ranged from 3 to 12 months were recruited. All studies used diode laser with wavelengths ranged from 660 to 810 nm. The results demonstrated that the MD + aPDT group showed significant benefits for BOP reduction after 6 months (SMD = -2.15, 95% CI: -3.78 to -0.51, p = 0.01). However, a great amount of heterogeneity was observed (I2 = 91.52%, p < 0.001). Moreover, there was a significant difference between MD + aPDT and MD alone groups in CBL (SMD = -0.69, 95% CI: -1.07 to -0.30, p < 0.001). In addition, homogeneity assumption was satisfied (I2 = 22.49%, p = 0.28). Significant differences in PD and PI reduction were not found except for PI reduction after 3 months (SMD = -0.79, 95% CI: -1.24 to -0.33, p < 0.001. Also, no heterogeneity was observed (I2 = 0.00%, p = 0.47).

CONCLUSION

Given that high heterogeneity in BOP and PD outcome was found in this systematic review, future long-term CTs with MD + aPDT should be examined to arrive at a firm conclusion.

Decontamination of biofilm-contaminated implant surfaces: An in vitro evaluation

OBJECTIVES

The aim of the present study was to evaluate the cleaning efficacy of two mechanical and two chemical protocols in the decontamination of implant surfaces.

METHODS

In total, 123 commercially available implants were mounted in plastic models mimicking peri-implant circumferential intra-bony defects. A multispecies biofilm was grown on implant surfaces. Mechanical (air-polishing (AP), rotating titanium brush (TiB)) and chemical decontamination (alkaline electrolyzed water, N-acetyl-L-cysteine) protocols were used. Cleaning efficacy in terms of residual biofilm area, chemical surface properties, and bacterial counts were analyzed by scanning electron microscopy, energy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy, and quantitative polymerase chain reaction.

RESULTS

Surface decontamination protocols including use of an AP device or a rotating TiB were superior in terms of biofilm removal and in reducing atomic% of Carbon on implant surfaces when compared to methods restricted to wiping with gauze. The use of chemical agents as adjuncts to the mechanical cleaning protocols provided no relevant overall benefit over saline. No treatment modality, however, resulted in complete biofilm removal.

CONCLUSION

Air-polishing and rotating TiB were more effective implant surface decontamination protocols than wiping with gauzes. Use of chemical agents did not improve cleaning efficacy.

Effectiveness of Photodynamic Therapy as Antiseptic Measure for Oral Cavity and Pharynx: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

The complex traditional treatment of inflammation diseases in oral cavity includes the prescription of antibiotic and antiseptic therapy. This systematic review aims to evaluate the effect of photodynamic therapy as a part of management of inflammatory diseases in oral cavity; Methods: The study is presented in accordance with the preferred reporting points for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA). This systematic review was conducted using electronic databases such as Medline PubMed, Scopus and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. All the studies in this systematic review, were randomized, the risk of bias 2 (ROB 2) were assessed; Results: Considering the inclusion and exclusion criteria, we included 10 randomized clinical trials, published up to 2023 investigating the application of photodynamic therapy as a part of management of inflammatory diseases in oral cavity. The diode laser was used in the oral cavity in the zone of inflammatory process (gingivitis, mucositis, periimplantitis, marginal periodontitis, abscess, periostitis, osteomyelitis etc.) in nine studies or in the zone before surgical procedures in one study; Conclusion: Based on the results of clinical studies, it can be stated that photodynamic therapy shows good results for operations performed in the oral cavity and pharynx.

Clinical and radiographic outcomes of adjunctive photodynamic therapy for treating peri-implantitis among diabetics and cigarette smokers: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials

Photodynamic therapy (PDT) has been suggested as an adjunctive therapeutic approach for peri-implantitis. This systematic review aimed to assess the clinical and radiographic outcomes of adjunctive PDT (aPDT) for the treatment of peri-implantitis among diabetics and cigarette smokers. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs), which assessed the clinical and radiographic outcomes of aPDT versus other intervention(s) and/or MD alone among diabetics and smokers with peri-implantitis, were considered eligible for the review. Meta-analysis was performed for calculating the standard mean difference (SMD) with a 95% confidence interval (CI). The methodological quality of the included studies was evaluated using the modified Jadad quality scale. The meta-analysis revealed no significant differences between the influence of aPDT and other intervention/MD alone on the peri-implant PI among diabetics at the final follow-up. However, statistically significant improvements in the peri-implant PD, BOP, and CBL were observed after the application of aPDT among diabetics. Similarly, no significant differences were found between the influence of aPDT and other interventions/MD alone on the peri-implant PD among smokers with peri-implant diseases at the final follow-up. However, statistically significant improvements in the peri-implant PI, BOP, and CBL were observed after the application of aPDT among smokers. Significant improvements in the peri-implant PD, BOP, and CBL among diabetics and the peri-implant PI, BOP, and CBL among smokers after the application of aPDT at the final follow-up. However, large-scale, well-designed, and long-term RCTs are recommended in this domain.

The efficacy of implant surface decontamination using chemicals during surgical treatment of peri-implantitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM

To answer the following PICOS question: "In adult patients with peri-implantitis, what is the efficacy of surgical therapy with chemical surface decontamination of implant surfaces in comparison with surgical therapy alone or surgery with placebo decontamination, on probing pocket depth (PD) reduction and bleeding on probing (BoP)/suppuration on probing (SoP), in randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) and non-RCTs with at least 6 months of follow-up?"

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Six databases were searched from their inception up to 20 May 2022. Data on clinical outcome variables were pooled and analysed using mean differences (MDs), risk ratios (RRs), or risk differences (RDs) as appropriate, 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and prediction intervals (PIs) in the case of significant heterogeneity. Primary outcomes were determined as changes in PD and BoP/SoP. Secondary outcomes were radiographic marginal bone loss (MBL), implant loss, and disease resolution. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42022325603.

RESULTS

Six RCTs-two with moderate, three with high, and one with low risk of bias (RoB)-were included. These studies test the adjunctive effect of photodynamic therapy (PDT), chlorhexidine (CHX), and administration of local antibiotics (LAbs) during surgery on the clinical outcome. In a single 12-month study, the adjunctive use of local antibiotics showed a clinically relevant reduction of PD [MD = 1.44; 95%CI (0.40 to -2.48)] and MBL [MD = 1.21; 95%CI (0.44-1.98); one trial, 32 participants]. PDT showed a small but significant reduction in BoP [MD = 7.41%; 95%CI (0.81-14.00); p = 0.028; two trials; 42 participants]. Treatment with CHX resulted in no significant changes in PD, BoP, or MBL compared to placebo (saline solution). None of the interventions affected disease resolution and implant loss. Certainty of the evidence was very low for all outcome measures assessed.

CONCLUSIONS

Within the limitations of this systematic review and the meta-analysis, adjunctive use of chemicals such as PDT, CHX, and LAbs for surface decontamination during surgery of peri-implantitis cannot be recommended as superior to standard debridement procedures (mechanical debridement with or without saline).

Efficacy of access flap and pocket elimination procedures in the management of peri-implantitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

AIM

To evaluate the efficacy of access flap and pocket elimination procedures in the surgical treatment of peri-implantitis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Systematic electronic searches (Central/MEDLINE/EMBASE) up to March 2022 were conducted to identify prospective clinical studies evaluating surgical therapy (access flap or pocket elimination procedures) of peri-implantitis. Primary outcome measures were reduction of probing depth (PD) and bleeding on probing (BOP). Risk of bias was evaluated according to study design. Meta-analysis and meta-regression were performed. Results were expressed as standardized mean effect with 95% confidence interval (CI).

RESULTS

Evidence from studies directly comparing surgical with non-surgical therapy is lacking. Based on pre-post data originating from 13 prospective patient cohorts, pronounced reductions of PD (standardized mean effect: 2.2 mm; 95% CI 1.8-2.7) and BOP% (27.0; 95% CI 19.8-34.2) as well as marginal bone level gain (0.2 mm; 95% CI -0.0 to 0.5) were observed at evaluation time points ranging from 1 to 5 years. Wide prediction intervals suggested a high degree of heterogeneity. Reduction of mean PD increased by 0.7 mm (95% CI 0.5-0.9) for every millimetre in increase of mean PD at baseline. During the follow-up period ranging from 1 to 5 years, disease recurrence occurred frequently and implant loss was not uncommon.

CONCLUSIONS

Access flap and pocket elimination surgery are effective procedures in the management of peri-implantitis, although rates of disease recurrence during 5 years were high. Treatment outcomes were affected by baseline conditions.

Efficacy of surgical methods for peri-implantitis: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Peri-implantitis is the most difficult biological complication associated with dental implants, often requiring surgical treatments in advanced stages. This study compares the effectiveness of different surgical methods for peri-implantitis.

METHODS

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of different surgical treatments for peri-implantitis were extracted from EMBASE, Web of Science, Cochrane Library databases, and PubMed systematically. Pairwise comparisons and network meta-analyses (NMA) were conducted to analyze the effect of surgical treatments on probing depth (PD), radiographic bone fill (RBF), mucosal recession (MR), bleeding on probing (BOP), and clinical attachment level (CAL). In addition, risk of bias, quality of evidence, and statistical heterogeneity of the selected studies were evaluated. A total of 13 articles were included in this study, involving open flap debridement (OFD), resective therapy (RT), and augmentative therapy (AT) with and without adjunctive treatments (laser therapy, photodynamic therapy, local antibiotics, phosphoric acid, and ozone therapy).

RESULTS

AT improved RBF and CAL more than OFD, but does not outperform OFD in reducing peri-implant soft-tissue inflammation. AT, OFD and RT did not significantly alter the levels of MR. Addition of ozone therapy improved the effect of AT, but addition of photodynamic therapy did not affect PD reduction and CAL gain significantly. Similarly, adjuvant treatment with phosphoric acid during RT did not significantly change the outcome of BOP.

CONCLUSIONS

Within the limitation of this systematic review and NMA, AT was superior to OFD in improving peri-implantitis outcomes. While adjunct use of ozone therapy may further improve the efficacy of AT, the limited evidence supporting this combination therapy argues for cautionary interpretation of these results.

Surgical Treatment of Peri-Implantitis Using a Combined Nd: YAG and Er: YAG Laser Approach: Investigation of Clinical and Bone Loss Biomarkers

The current study aimed to investigate the effect of the combined Nd-Er: YAG laser on the surgical treatment of peri-implantitis by evaluating clinical markers and biomarkers of bone loss (RANKL/OPG). Twenty (20) patients having at least 1 implant diagnosed with peri-implantitis were randomly assigned to two groups for surgical treatment. In the test group (n = 10), Er: YAG laser was used for granulation tissue removal and implant surface decontamination, while Nd: YAG laser was employed for deep tissue decontamination and biomodulation. In the control group (n = 10), an access flap was applied, and mechanical instrumentation of the implant surface was performed by using titanium curettes. The following clinical parameters were evaluated at baseline and six months after treatment: Full-mouth Plaque Score (FMPS), Probing Pocket Depth (PPD), Probing Attachment Levels (PAL), recession (REC), and Bleeding on probing (BoP). Peri-implant crevicular fluid (PICF) was collected at baseline and six months for the evaluation of soluble RANKL and OPG utilizing enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA). Baseline clinical values were similar for both groups, with no statistical differences between them. The study results indicated statistically significant improvements in the clinical parameters during the 6-month observation period in both groups. More specifically, PPD, PAL, and REC were improved in the test and control groups with no differences in the between-groups comparisons. However, a greater reduction in the BoP-positive sites was noted for the laser group (Mean change 22.05 ± 33.92 vs. 55.00 ± 30.48, p = 0.037). The baseline and six-month comparisons of sRANKL and OPG revealed no statistically significant differences between the two groups. The combined Nd: YAG—Er: YAG laser surgical therapy of peri-implantitis seemed to lead to more favorable improvements in regard to bleeding on probing six months after treatment compared to the conventional mechanical decontamination of the implant surface. None of the methods was found superior in the modification of bone loss biomarkers (RANKL, OPG) six months after treatment.

Surgical interventions for the treatment of peri-implantitis

BACKGROUND

Peri-implantitis constitutes one of the most frequent late dental implant complications. The disease is initiated by bacterial infection; therefore, anti-infective peri-implantitis treatment strategies are required to arrest the progressive marginal bone loss and maintain the affected implant in function. Although nonsurgical treatment strategies appear to be of limited predictability, treatment outcomes have been frequently improved following surgical interventions.

PURPOSE

The present narrative review describes various surgical peri-implantitis treatment modalities, with respect to their indications, performance, and effectiveness.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The present narrative review considered the most relevant studies in the field published in the English language.

RESULTS

Surgical peri-implantitis treatment approaches can be categorized as nonreconstrucive therapy, reconstructive therapy, and combined therapy (ie, reconstructive and resective therapy). In addition to disease resolution, reconstructive approaches also seek to regenerate the bone defect and achieve reosseointegration.

CONCLUSIONS

The severity of the disease, the regenerative potential of the defetc and esthetic demands of the patient are the factors determining the surgical peri-implantitis treatment modality.

Surface decontamination protocols for surgical treatment of peri-implantitis: A systematic review with meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To answer the following PICO question: "In patients requiring surgical treatment of peri-implantitis (P), is any implant surface decontamination protocol (I) superior to others (C) in terms of clinical and radiographic parameters (O)?"

METHODS

Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing two or more decontamination protocols as part of the surgical treatment of peri-implantitis were included. Two authors independently searched for eligible studies, screened titles and abstracts, did full-text analysis, extracted data, and performed the risk-of-bias assessment. Whenever possible, results were summarized through random effects meta-analyses.

RESULTS

Twenty-two manuscripts reporting on 16 RCTs were included, testing mechanical, chemical and physical decontamination protocols. All of them resulted in an improvement in clinical parameters; however, the superiority of specific protocols over others is mainly based on single RCTs. The use of titanium brushes and implantoplasty showed favorable results as single decontamination methods. Meta-analyses indicated a lack of added effect of Er:Yag laser on probing pocket depth (PPD) reduction (n = 2, WMD = -0.24 mm, 95% confidence interval [CI] [-1.10; 0.63], p = .59); while systemic antimicrobials (amoxicillin or azithromycin) showed an added effect on treatment success ([PPD ≤5 mm, no bleeding or suppuration, no progressive bone loss]; n = 2, RR = 1.84, 95% CI [1.17;2.91], p = .008), but not in terms of PPD reduction (n = 2, WMD = 0.93 mm, 95% CI [-0.69; 2.55], p = .26), even if with substantial heterogeneity.

CONCLUSIONS

No single decontamination method demonstrated clear evidence of superiority compared to the others. Systemic antibiotics, but not Er:Yag laser, may provide short-term clinical benefits in terms of treatment success (CRD42020182303).

Photodynamic Therapy for Peri-Implant Diseases

Peri-implant diseases are frequently presented in patients with dental implants. This category of inflammatory infections includes peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis that are primarily caused by the oral bacteria that colonize the implant and the supporting soft and hard tissues. Other factors also contribute to the pathogenesis of peri-implant diseases. Based on established microbial etiology, mechanical debridement has been the standard management approach for peri-implant diseases. To enhance the improvement of therapeutic outcomes, adjunctive treatment in the form of antibiotics, probiotics, lasers, etc. have been reported in the literature. Recently, the use of photodynamic therapy (PDT)/antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) centered on the premise that a photoactive substance offers benefits in the resolution of peri-implant diseases has gained attention. Herein, the reported role of PDT in peri-implant diseases, as well as existing observations and opinions regarding PDT, are discussed.

The Application of Antimicrobial Photodynamic Therapy (aPDT) in the Treatment of Peri-Implantitis

Background

This literature review evaluates the mechanisms and efficacy of different types of antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) for treating peri-implantitis by reviewing existing experimental studies to provide guidance for the clinical application of antibacterial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) in oral implants.

Materials and Methods

From February 2001 to February 2021, we have collected 152 randomized controlled trials of aPDT for peri-implantitis by searching the experimental studies and clinical trials published in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases via online search. After screening the retrieved literature, we finally selected 10 statistically significant literature for evaluation and review.

Results

Compared with the traditional nonsurgical treatment of peri-implantitis, the aPDT was superior to the traditional mechanical irrigation treatment group in terms of periodontal indexes PD, BOP, PLI, and postoperative effect, and the difference was statistically significant (P < 0.05). Furthermore, the combination of the aPDT and other treatments shows the synergistic antibacterial effect, signifying better clinical effect in many aspects (P < 0.05). In these 10 papers, by comparing the probe depth (PD), bleeding on probing (BOP), synosteosis, and periodontal pathogenic bacteria detection, etc., obtained after treating peri-implantitis by application of the antimicrobial photodynamic therapy, and using the SPSS data analysis software for statistical data processing, we found that the antimicrobial photodynamic therapy combined with other periodontal treatments has a more prominent postoperative effect. Meanwhile, the antibacterial photodynamic therapy with targeted action of photosensitizer has strong specificity to some bacteria, while the synthetic photosensitize for antibacterial photodynamic therapy can show good inactivation effect on broad-spectrum periodontal anaerobes without side effect.

Conclusion

The experimental studies and clinical data of antibacterial photodynamic therapy for treating peri-implantitis show a good postoperative treatment effect. In addition, it did not develop resistance due to the use of antibiotic drugs. Owing to multiple advantages from combining antibacterial photodynamic therapy and other treatments, it is applicable for clinical treatment.

Peri-implant parameters and bone metabolic markers among water-pipe users treated with photodynamic therapy

AIM

The study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of Mechanical debridement (MD) with and without adjunct antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) in the treatment of peri‑implantitis among waterpipe smokers (WPS) and non-smokers with peri‑implantitis MATERIAL AND METHODS: Participants were stratified into two groups. Group 1: Subjects who smoked water pipes for the last 2 years with peri‑implant disease were treated with aPDT adjunct to MD and group 2: Participants who did not use water pipes in the last 2 years but have periimplantitis (controls) were treated with MD only. Participants were scrutinized with peri‑implantitis (PI) in one dental implant at least based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Using structured questionnaire information was gathered from participants. All participants underwent mechanical debridement (MD). Participants of WPS underwent antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT). Peri implant inflammatory parameters (PI, BI, PD, and CBL) were assessed in all participant at baseline, 3 months and 6 months follow-up. Periimplant sulcular fluid was collected for assessment of bone metabolic biomarkers RANK-L and OPG. For immunological and clinical peri‑implant parameters analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Kruskal-Wallis test were used. For multiple comparisons, Bonferroni post hoc test was deployed.

RESULTS

Clinical periodontal parameters at baseline were significantly different in the control group PI (49.8 ± 10.5), BI(46.8 ± 7.7), and PD (5.0 ± 1.8) compared to WPS PI (56.1 ± 12.0), BI (40.9 ± 8.3), and PD (5.6 ± 1.5) (p < 0.05). At 3 months follow-up after PDT, PI (19.1 ± 7.7) and PD (3.9 ± 1.4) were significantly lower in the control group compared to WPS group PI (23.5 ± 8.4) and PD (4.5 ± 1.2) (p < 0.05). Whereas, BI of control (16.3 ± 6.8) and WPS group (17.1 ± 5.3) at 3 months follow-up was comparable (p > 0.05). At six months follow up following PDT, PI (15.7 ± 5.5) and PD (3.4 ± 1.2) was significantly lower in the control group compared to participants with water piped users PI (18.6 ± 7.4) and PD (3.9 ± 1.3) (p < 0.05). No significant difference was noted in BI in both groups (p > 0.05). Participants treated with PDT adjunct to MD demonstrated significantly reduced mean RANK-L levels at both 3 and 6 months (p<0.05).

CONCLUSION

aPDT adjunctive to MD improved periodontal parameters i.e., plaque index, pocket depth, and crestal bone loss along with metabolic marker RANK-L in water pipe smokers compared to non piped smokers.

Efficacy of alternative or adjunctive measures to conventional non-surgical and surgical treatment of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Purpose

To evaluate the efficacy of alternative or adjunctive measures to conventional non-surgical or surgical treatment of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis.

Material and methods

Prospective randomized and nonrandomized controlled studies comparing alternative or adjunctive measures, and reporting on changes in bleeding scores (i.e., bleed0ing index (BI) or bleeding on probing (BOP)), probing depth (PD) values or suppuration (SUPP) were searched.

Results

Peri-implant mucositis: adjunctive use of local antiseptics lead to greater PD reduction (weighted mean difference (WMD) = − 0.23 mm; p = 0.03, respectively), whereas changes in BOP were comparable (WMD = − 5.30%; p = 0.29). Non-surgical treatment of peri-implantitis: alternative measures for biofilm removal and systemic antibiotics yielded higher BOP reduction (WMD = − 28.09%; p = 0.01 and WMD = − 17.35%; p = 0.01, respectively). Surgical non-reconstructive peri-implantitis treatment: WMD in PD amounted to − 1.11 mm favoring adjunctive implantoplasty (p = 0.02). Adjunctive reconstructive measures lead to significantly higher radiographic bone defect fill/reduction (WMD = 56.46%; p = 0.01 and WMD = − 1.47 mm; p = 0.01), PD (− 0.51 mm; p = 0.01) and lower soft-tissue recession (WMD = − 0.63 mm; p = 0.01), while changes in BOP were not significant (WMD = − 11.11%; p = 0.11).

Conclusions

Alternative and adjunctive measures provided no beneficial effect in resolving peri-implant mucositis, while alternative measures were superior in reducing BOP values following non-surgical treatment of peri-implantitis. Adjunctive reconstructive measures were beneficial regarding radiographic bone-defect fill/reduction, PD reduction and lower soft-tissue recession, although they did not improve the resolution of mucosal inflammation.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40729-021-00388-x.

Photodynamic Therapy for Biomodulation and Disinfection in Implant Dentistry: Is It Feasible and Effective?

Dental implants are the most common rehabilitation and restorative treatment used to replace missing teeth. Biofilms adhere to implant surfaces to trigger implant-associated infection and inflammatory response. Clinically, the biofilm induces a local host response with the infiltration of phagocytic immune cells. The pro-inflammatory surroundings set off osteoclastogenesis, which leads to the septic loosening of the implant. The standard of dental care for implant-associated infection relies on a combination of surgery and antimicrobial therapy. Antimicrobial photodynamic therapy is a noninvasive and photochemistry-based approach capable of reducing bacterial load and modulating inflammatory responses. In this review, we explore the photobiomodulation and disinfection outcomes promoted by photodynamic therapy for implant infections, highlighting the quality of evidence on the most up-to-date studies, and discuss the major challenges on the advance of these therapeutic strategies.

Laser-Assisted aPDT Protocols in Randomized Controlled Clinical Trials in Dentistry: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) has been proposed as an effective alternative method for the adjunctive treatment of all classes of oral infections. The multifactorial nature of its mechanism of action correlates with various influencing factors, involving parameters concerning both the photosensitizer and the light delivery system. This study aims to critically evaluate the recorded parameters of aPDT applications that use lasers as the light source in randomized clinical trials in dentistry.

METHODS

PubMed and Cochrane search engines were used to identify human clinical trials of aPDT therapy in dentistry. After applying specific keywords, additional filters, inclusion and exclusion criteria, the initial number of 7744 articles was reduced to 38.

RESULTS

Almost one-half of the articles presented incomplete parameters, whilst the others had different protocols, even with the same photosensitizer and for the same field of application.

CONCLUSIONS

No safe recommendation for aPDT protocols can be extrapolated for clinical use. Further research investigations should be performed with clear protocols, so that standardization for their potential dental applications can be achieved.

Adjunctive Use of Lasers in Peri-Implant Mucositis and Peri-Implantitis Treatment: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

The aim of this systematic review is to compare the effectiveness of lasers in the treatment of implant mucositis and peri-implantitis compared to conventional treatment (non-surgical or surgical: resective or regenerative).

METHODS

Sources of PubMed, Cochrane and Google Scholar search engines were used on articles published from 1997 to 2020 in English, with selected keyword criteria applied. Nine randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were selected.

RESULTS

All included studies were considered of "high quality" according to the quality assessment scale. The comparative assessment of the RCTs was done twice for each RCT based on the type of treatment and according to wavelength. There is strong scientific evidence that, regarding non-surgical treatment, adjunct laser application can provide better results only in the short term (three months). Regarding the surgical approach, the method of decontamination plays a subordinate role. All wavelengths/applications presented similar results.

CONCLUSION

Within the limitations of this study, the adjunctive use of lasers in the treatment of peri-implant inflammation is effective for up to three months; there is no strong evidence regarding the long term benefit compared to conventional treatment.

Scope of antimicrobial photodynamic therapy in Orthodontics and related research: A review

BACKGROUND

The aim of the present study was to comprehensively review indexed literature regarding the potential role of antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) in Orthodontics.

METHODS

Indexed databases were searched up to and including January 2019 using the following key words: (a) antimicrobial photodynamic therapy; (b) antimicrobial photodynamic chemotherapy; (c) orthodontic; and (d) orthodontics. Original (clinical and experimental) studies, case-reports, and case-series were included. Letters to the Editor, commentaries and review articles were excluded.

RESULTS

Out of the 29 studies identified in the initial search, 4 studies were processed for data extraction. Three studies were randomized clinical trials performed in humans and 1 study was experimental. Results from 2 studies showed that aPDT is effective in the treatment of gingival inflammation in patients undergoing orthodontic therapy (OT). One study showed that oral decontamination can be successfully performed using aPDT among patients undergoing OT. Results of the experimental study showed that aPDT helps in surface decontamination of orthodontic instruments.

CONCLUSION

There is insufficient evidence in indexed literature to justify the potential role of aPDT in OT. Hence, further studies are required in this regard.