Adjunctive photodynamic therapy improves the outcomes of peri‐implantitis: a randomized controlled trial

Unraveling the Applicability of LbL Coatings for Drug Delivery in Dental Implant-Related Infection Treatment

Peri-implantitis is an inflammatory condition caused by bacterial biofilms adhered on dental implant surfaces that cause progressive tissue destruction from the host's inflammatory response. The adverse effects of peri-implantitis progression can go beyond just losing the implant. This highlights the importance of implementing strategies to stabilize disease in the short term. Layer-by-layer (LbL) assembly is a promising avenue in the field of peri-implantitis management due to its applicability with a variety of substances, in addition to being an easy, versatile, and flexible process for multilayer formation to act directly in the affected site. In this Review, our objective is to offer comprehensive chemical and biological insights into the LbL system, clarifying its specific application as antimicrobial coatings, with concern for the physical site and purpose. Additionally, we delve deeper into the concepts of onset and progression of peri-implantitis, aiming to elucidate the precise indications for employing the LbL system as a coating for implant abutments in peri-implantitis treatment. Finally, we correlate the chemical composition of the LbL system with its functionality while also addressing the challenges posed by the uncontrolled environment of the oral cavity, which ultimately restricts its clinical applicability.

Use of Lasers in the Nonsurgical Treatment of Peri-Implantitis: A Systematic Review of the Literature

Peri-implantitis is an infectious disease that causes inflammation of the tissue surrounding an implant. The aim of this systematic review of the literature is to assess the effect of the use of lasers in the nonsurgical treatment of peri-implantitis in order to estimate its benefits compared with conventional therapies. The review's protocol has been registered on PROSPERO international prospective register. The research strategy was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The inclusion criteria were as follows: in vivo studies, written in English, measurements of clinical parameters, minimum follow-up at 6 months and with nonsurgical control group, studies about photodynamic therapy, randomized clinical trial, and clinical trial. Electronic (on PubMed, Cochrane, Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature, and Report Evidence-based Practice Centers databases) and manual searches (in articles' references) were conducted until July 2021. Risk of bias was assessed for each reference thanks to the Cochrane Collaboration's tool. A total of 12 randomized clinical trials, with a high level of evidence, were selected and investigated in this systematic review. A table summarizes data extracted from these articles. It appears that the parameters improve favorably by using lasers, but without any significant difference. In accordance with the analysis of studies, our results show that laser therapy with specific characteristics allows to obtain beneficial therapeutic effects on wound healing in the short and the medium-term concerning the clinical parameters in the nonsurgical treatment of peri-implantitis. Concerning its long-term usefulness, it has yet to be confirmed. However, its benefits remains limited since the results agree that the effects of the laser are similar to those obtained by using conventional therapy.

BSP Implementation of prevention and treatment of peri-implant diseases - The EFP S3 level clinical practice guideline

OBJECTIVES

to adapt the supranational European Federation of Periodontology (EFP) Prevention and Treatment of Peri-implant Diseases - The EFP S3 Level Clinical Practice Guideline for UK healthcare environment, taking into account a broad range of views from stakeholders and patients.

SOURCES

This UK version, based on the supranational EFP guideline [1] published in the Journal of Clinical Periodontology, was developed using S3-level methodology, combining assessment of formal evidence from 13 systematic reviews with a moderated consensus process of a representative group of stakeholders, and accounts for health equality, environmental factors and clinical effectiveness. It encompasses 55 clinical recommendations for the Prevention and Treatment of Peri-implant Diseases, based on the classification for periodontal and peri‑implant diseases and conditions [2].

METHODOLOGY

The UK version was developed from the source guideline using a formal process called the GRADE ADOLOPMENT framework. This framework allows for adoption (unmodified acceptance), adaptation (acceptance with modifications) and the de novo development of clinical recommendations. Using this framework, following the S3-process, the underlying evidence was updated and a representative guideline group of 111 delegates from 26 stakeholder organisations was assembled into four working groups. Following the formal S3-process, all clinical recommendations were formally assessed for their applicability to the UK and adoloped accordingly.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

Using the ADOLOPMENT protocol, a UK version of the EFP S3-level clinical practice guideline for the Prevention and Treatment of Peri-implant Diseases was developed. This guideline delivers evidence- and consensus-based clinical recommendations of direct relevance to the UK healthcare community including the public.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

The S3-level-guidelines combine evaluation of formal evidence, grading of recommendations and synthesis with clinical expertise of a broad range of stakeholders. The international S3-level-guideline was implemented for direct clinical applicability in the UK healthcare system, facilitating a consistent, interdisciplinary, evidence-based approach with public involvement for the prevention and treatment of peri‑implant diseases.

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.

Bactericidal Effect of Different Photochemical-Based Therapy Options on Implant Surfaces-An In Vitro Study

Objectives: Photochemical systems are frequently recommended as an adjuvant treatment option in peri-implantitis therapy. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the efficacy of these treatment options, as well as a novel curcumin-based option, in a biofilm model on implants. Methods: Eighty dental implants were inoculated with an artificial biofilm of periodontal pathogens and placed in peri-implant pocket models. The following groups were analyzed: I, photodynamic therapy (PDT); II, PDT dye; III, curcumin/DMSO + laser; IV, curcumin/DMSO only; V, dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) only; VI, photothermal therapy (PTT); VII, PTT dye; VIII, control. After treatment, remaining bacterial loads were assessed microbiologically using quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction analysis. Results: The PDT, PTT, and DMSO treatment methods were associated with statistically significant (p < 0.05) improvements in germ reduction in comparison with the other methods and the untreated control group. The mean percentage reductions were as follows: I (PDT) 93.9%, II (PDT dye) 62.9%, III (curcumin/DMSO + laser) 74.8%, IV (curcumin/DMSO only) 67.9%, V (DMSO) 89.4%, VI (PTT) 86.8%, and VII (PTT dye) 66.3%. Conclusions: The commercially available PDT and PTT adjuvant treatment systems were associated with the largest statistically significant reduction in periopathogenic bacteria on implant surfaces. However, activation with laser light at a suitable wavelength is necessary to achieve the bactericidal effects. The use of curcumin as a photosensitizer for 445 nm laser irradiation did not lead to any improvement in antibacterial efficacy in comparison with rinsing with DMSO solution alone.

Adjunctive antimicrobial photodynamic therapy for treating periodontal and peri-implant diseases

BACKGROUND

Periodontitis and peri-implant diseases are chronic inflammatory conditions occurring in the mouth. Left untreated, periodontitis progressively destroys the tooth-supporting apparatus. Peri-implant diseases occur in tissues around dental implants and are characterised by inflammation in the peri-implant mucosa and subsequent progressive loss of supporting bone. Treatment aims to clean the pockets around teeth or dental implants and prevent damage to surrounding soft tissue and bone, including improvement of oral hygiene, risk factor control (e.g. encouraging cessation of smoking) and surgical interventions. The key aspect of standard non-surgical treatment is the removal of the subgingival biofilm using subgingival instrumentation (SI) (also called scaling and root planing). Antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) can be used an adjunctive treatment to SI. It uses light energy to kill micro-organisms that have been treated with a light-absorbing photosensitising agent immediately prior to aPDT.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of SI with adjunctive aPDT versus SI alone or with placebo aPDT for periodontitis and peri-implant diseases in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Oral Health Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, two other databases and two trials registers up to 14 February 2024.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) (both parallel-group and split-mouth design) in participants with a clinical diagnosis of periodontitis, peri-implantitis or peri-implant disease. We compared the adjunctive use of antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT), in which aPDT was given after subgingival or submucosal instrumentation (SI), versus SI alone or a combination of SI and a placebo aPDT given during the active or supportive phase of therapy.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard Cochrane methodological procedures, and we used GRADE to assess the certainty of the evidence. We prioritised six outcomes and the measure of change from baseline to six months after treatment: probing pocket depth (PPD), bleeding on probing (BOP), clinical attachment level (CAL), gingival recession (REC), pocket closure and adverse effects related to aPDT. We were also interested in change in bone level (for participants with peri-implantitis), and participant satisfaction and quality of life.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 50 RCTs with 1407 participants. Most studies used a split-mouth study design; only 18 studies used a parallel-group design. Studies were small, ranging from 10 participants to 88. Adjunctive aPDT was given in a single session in 39 studies, in multiple sessions (between two and four sessions) in 11 studies, and one study included both single and multiple sessions. SI was given using hand or power-driven instrumentation (or both), and was carried out prior to adjunctive aPDT. Five studies used placebo aPDT in the control group and we combined these in meta-analyses with studies in which SI alone was used. All studies included high or unclear risks of bias, such as selection bias or performance bias of personnel (when SI was carried out by an operator aware of group allocation). We downgraded the certainty of all the evidence owing to these risks of bias, as well as for unexplained statistical inconsistency in the pooled effect estimates or for imprecision when evidence was derived from very few participants and confidence intervals (CI) indicated possible benefit to both intervention and control groups. Adjunctive aPDT versus SI alone during active treatment of periodontitis (44 studies) We are very uncertain whether adjunctive aPDT during active treatment of periodontitis leads to improvement in any clinical outcomes at six months when compared to SI alone: PPD (mean difference (MD) 0.52 mm, 95% CI 0.31 to 0.74; 15 studies, 452 participants), BOP (MD 5.72%, 95% CI 1.62 to 9.81; 5 studies, 171 studies), CAL (MD 0.44 mm, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.64; 13 studies, 414 participants) and REC (MD 0.00, 95% CI -0.16 to 0.16; 4 studies, 95 participants); very low-certainty evidence. Any apparent differences between adjunctive aPDT and SI alone were not judged to be clinically important. Twenty-four studies (639 participants) observed no adverse effects related to aPDT (moderate-certainty evidence). No studies reported pocket closure at six months, participant satisfaction or quality of life. Adjunctive aPDT versus SI alone during supportive treatment of periodontitis (six studies) We were very uncertain whether adjunctive aPDT during supportive treatment of periodontitis leads to improvement in any clinical outcomes at six months when compared to SI alone: PPD (MD -0.04 mm, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.10; 3 studies, 125 participants), BOP (MD 4.98%, 95% CI -2.51 to 12.46; 3 studies, 127 participants), CAL (MD 0.07 mm, 95% CI -0.26 to 0.40; 2 studies, 85 participants) and REC (MD -0.20 mm, 95% CI -0.48 to 0.08; 1 study, 24 participants); very low-certainty evidence. These findings were all imprecise and included no clinically important benefits for aPDT. Three studies (134 participants) reported adverse effects: a single participant developed an abscess, though it is not evident whether this was related to aPDT, and two studies observed no adverse effects related to aPDT (moderate-certainty evidence). No studies reported pocket closure at six months, participant satisfaction or quality of life.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Because the certainty of the evidence is very low, we cannot be sure if adjunctive aPDT leads to improved clinical outcomes during the active or supportive treatment of periodontitis; moreover, results suggest that any improvements may be too small to be clinically important. The certainty of this evidence can only be increased by the inclusion of large, well-conducted RCTs that are appropriately analysed to account for change in outcome over time or within-participant split-mouth study designs (or both). We found no studies including people with peri-implantitis, and only one study including people with peri-implant mucositis, but this very small study reported no data at six months, warranting more evidence for adjunctive aPDT in this population group.

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.

Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes of Adjunctive Phototherapy Versus Antibiotic Therapy Against Peri-Implant Diseases: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background: Peri-implantitis, an inflammatory condition in implant tissues, requires bacterial eradication and implant surface decontamination, with aPDT as a helpful surgical adjunct. Objective:This project was designed to investigate the effect of antibiotic therapy versus aPDT, as adjuncts to conventional mechanical debridement (MD), on the peri-implant clinical and/or radiographic parameters among patients with peri-implant diseases. Methods: A comprehensive search was conducted across electronic databases, including PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science, up to and including April 2023, without any restriction on the language and year of publication, focusing the following research question: "Does adjunctive aPDT improve the peri-implant clinical and/or radiographic parameters in treating peri-implant diseases compared to antibiotic therapy?" Statistical analysis was performed on peri-implant clinical [plaque index (PI), probing depth (PD), and bleeding on probing (BOP)] and radiographic parameters [marginal bone loss (MBL)]. The study included six randomized controlled trials and one clinical (nonrandomized) study. Results: The systematic review findings indicate that the application of aPDT as an adjunct to MD is equally effective as adjunctive antibiotic therapy in improving peri-implant clinical parameters and radiographic parameters in patients with peri-implant diseases. Only two studies were classified as having a low risk of bias (RoB), two were assessed as having an unclear RoB, and the remaining three studies were determined to have a high RoB. However, the meta-analysis results revealed no statistically significant difference in peri-implant PI, PD, and MBL scores between patients treated with adjunct aPDT or adjunct antibiotic therapy. Notably, there was a statistically significant difference favoring adjunct aPDT in peri-implant BOP values compared to the control group. Conclusions: Despite the limited number of included studies and the significant heterogeneity among them, the findings suggest that aPDT yields comparable peri-implant clinical and radiographic outcomes to adjunctive antibiotic therapy, as adjuncts to MD, for the potential treatment of peri-implant diseases.

Photodynamic therapy adjuvant to non-surgical periodontal therapy: Systematic review of randomized clinical trials

OBJECTIVES

To systematically evaluate randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on whether adjuvant application of antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) through the technique of irradiation in the external region of the periodontal pocket with optic-fibre tip offers benefits to scaling and root planning (SRP).

METHODS

Five databases were searched by two independent reviewers according to pre-specified eligibility criteria up to April 2023. No restrictions regarding date of publication, language and minimum follow-up period were imposed. The Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias tool (RoB 2.0) was used for quality appraisal and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation for assessing the certainty of evidence.

RESULTS

A total of 1388 publications were identified and reviewed for eligibility. Four of them fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The sample consisted of a total of 83 patients with periodontitis. In these, 330 periodontal sites were evaluated. The clinical findings of the majority of the included studies demonstrated that patients who received the association of aPDT + RAR with the protocol evaluated here, obtained clinical results similar to patients who received only the SRP alone. In none of the evaluated RCTs, clinical advantages were observed that would categorise this aPDT protocol as superior to conventional treatment.

CONCLUSION

Applying aPDT after SRP with external irradiation of the periodontal pocket does not seem to result in any clinical benefit compared to the use of SRP alone in patients with periodontitis.

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.

The Efficacy of Ten Different Adjunctive Measures in Patients with Nonsurgically Treated Peri-Implant Disease: A Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the impact of 10 adjunctive measures on non-surgical therapy outcomes for peri-implant disease. Methods: We formulated the study question and keywords following the Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome framework. Randomized controlled trials were identified through searches in PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and the Web of Science. Two researchers assessed the quality of included literature according to the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool. Data analysis and ranking were performed using Stata 15.0 software. Results: This study, involving 51 pieces of literature and 2660 samples, conducted a network meta-analysis (NMA), which revealed that photodynamic therapy (PDT) significantly reduced probing pocket depth values in patients with peri-implant mucositis (SUCRA = 96.3%) and peri-implantitis (SUCRA = 96.7%). In addition, it showed an improvement in bleeding on probing (BOP) values for peri-implantitis (SUCRA = 91.6%). Furthermore, diode lasers improved BOP values for peri-implant mucositis (SUCRA = 76.5%). Conclusions: According to the NMA results and the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA), PDT and diode laser outperform other adjuncts in peri-implant disease.

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.

Clinical efficacy of adjunctive methods for the non-surgical treatment of peri-implantitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The aim of this systematic review (SR) was to evaluate the clinical efficacy of different adjunctive methods/therapies to the non-surgical treatment (NST) of peri-implantitis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The protocol of the review was registered in PROSPERO database (CRD42022339709) and was designed according to PRISMA statement. Electronic and hand searches were performed to identify randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing non-surgical treatment of peri-implantitis alone versus NST plus any adjunctive method/treatment. The primary outcome was probing pocket depth (PPD) reduction.

RESULTS

Sixteen RCTs were included. Only 2 out of 1189 implants were lost and follow-up ranged from 3 to 12 months. PPD reduction across the studies varied from 0.17 to 3.1 mm, while defect resolution from 5.3% to 57.1%. Systemic antimicrobials were associated to higher PPD reduction (1.56 mm; [95% CI 0.24 to 2.89]; p = 0.02) with high heterogeneity, and treatment success (OR = 3.23; [95% CI 1.17 to 8.94]; p = 0.02), compared to NST alone. No differences were found with adjunctive local antimicrobials and lasers for PPD and bleeding on probing (BoP) reduction.

CONCLUSIONS

Non-surgical treatment with or without adjunctive methods may reduce PPD and BoP even if complete resolution of the pocket is unpredictable. Among possible adjunctive methods, only systemic antibiotics seems to provide further benefits, but their usage should be considered with caution.

Antimicrobial photodynamic therapy against oral biofilm: influencing factors, mechanisms, and combined actions with other strategies

Oral biofilms are a prominent cause of a wide variety of oral infectious diseases which are still considered as growing public health problems worldwide. Oral biofilms harbor specific virulence factors that would aggravate the infectious process and present resistance to some traditional therapies. Antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) has been proposed as a potential approach to eliminate oral biofilms via in situ-generated reactive oxygen species. Although numerous types of research have investigated the effectiveness of aPDT, few review articles have listed the antimicrobial mechanisms of aPDT on oral biofilms and new methods to improve the efficiency of aPDT. The review aims to summarize the virulence factors of oral biofilms, the progress of aPDT in various oral biofilm elimination, the mechanism mediated by aPDT, and combinatorial approaches of aPDT with other traditional agents.

Photonics-based treatments: Mechanisms and applications in oral infectious diseases

Infectious diseases remain a serious global challenge threatening human health. Oral infectious diseases, a major neglected global problem, not only affect people's lifestyles but also have an intimate association with systemic diseases. Antibiotic therapy is a common treatment. However, the emergence of new resistance problems hindered and enhanced the complication of the treatment. Currently, antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) has long been the topic of intense interest due to the advantage of being minimally invasive, low toxicity, and high selectivity. aPDT is also becoming increasingly popular and applied in treating oral diseases such as tooth caries, pulpitis, periodontal diseases, peri-implantitis, and oral candidiasis. Photothermal therapy (PTT), another phototherapy, also plays an important role in resisting resistant bacterial and biofilm infections. In this mini-review, we summarize the latest advances in photonics-based treatments of oral infectious diseases. The whole review is divided into three main parts. The first part focuses on photonics-based antibacterial strategies and mechanisms. The second part presents applications for photonics-based treatments of oral infectious diseases. The last part discusses present problems in current materials and future perspectives.

Effect of mechanical instrumentation with adjunct photodynamic therapy on salivary TNFα levels and clinical periodontal and peri‑implant status in patients with depression: A randomized controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

The aim of the present randomized controlled trial was to assess the effect of mechanical instrumentation (MI) with adjunct photodynamic therapy (PDT) on salivary tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNFα) levels and clinical periodontal and peri‑implant status in patients with depression.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In groups 1 and 2, individuals with periodontal and peri‑implant diseases with and without depression, respectively were included. Group-3 comprised of systemically healthy individuals with a healthy periodontal and peri‑implant status. In groups 1 and 2, patients in the test- and control groups received MI with and without PDT respectively. Periodontal and peri‑implant probing depth and plaque and gingival indices were measured. Radiographic evaluation was done at baseline. Whole salivary tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNFα) in peri‑implant sulcular fluid were measured at baseline. The clinical and immunological parameters were reassessed at 120 days' follow-up. Level of significance was set at P<0.05.

RESULTS

Thirty-four, 36 and 37 implants were in function in groups 1, 2 and 3, respectively. At baseline, periodontal and peri‑implant clinical parameters and TNFα levels were significantly higher in groups 1 (P<0.05) and 2 (P<0.05) than Group-3. At 4-months follow-up, there was no difference in periodontal and peri‑implant clinical parameters in the test- and control groups among individuals in groups 1 and 3. In Group-2, there was a significant reduction in periodontal (P<0.05) and peri‑implant (P<0.05) clinical parameters at 4-months follow-up than baseline. In Group-2, there was no significant difference in these parameters among patients in the test- and control-groups.

CONCLUSION

In patients with depression clinical periodontal and peri‑implant status is poorer and salivary TNFα levels are higher after MI with or without PDT. In healthy patients, PDT offers no additional benefits in the treatment of periodontal inflammation.

A comparative evaluation of lasers and photodynamic therapy in the nonsurgical treatment of peri-implant diseases: A Bayesian network meta-analysis

PURPOSE

We conducted this Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) to evaluate the safety and efficacy of different lasers and PDT compared to conventional mechanical debridement (CMD) for peri-implant treatment.

METHODS

The Web of Science, Cochrane Library and PubMed databases were searched for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) assessing the clinical effectiveness of adjunctive PDT, different lasers, and CMD until January 1st, 2022. Clinical outcomes were the changes in pocket probing depth (PPD), marginal bone loss (MBL), and clinical attachment level (CAL).

RESULTS

Twenty-three studies, including 4 types of lasers, were included. Compared to that with CMD alone, PPD reduction was significantly more efficient in the diode laser (LD)+CMD groups (MD, 0.53; 95%CI, 0.13-0.93) and the PDT+CMD groups (MD, 0.83; 95%CI, 0.32-1.34) than in the CMD group in the follow-up period. Moreover, PDT+CMD treatment also showed a significantly better marginal bone level gain (MD, 0.32; 95%CI, 0.06-0.57). No significant effect on ΔCAL was observed among the different treatment strategies. Despite no differences in PPD reduction, MBL and CAL gains were found among the adjunctive laser treatment groups, PDT+CMD had the highest ranking probability of the most effective treatment in these clinical indices of periodontitis. The certainty of evidence for all outcomes was judged as very low to moderate.

CONCLUSIONS

Within the limits of this NMA, we found that adjunctive PDT achieved a small additional benefit on PPD reduction and MBL gain compared with CMD alone and had the highest probability of being ranked first on the changes in PPD, MBL and CAL. PDT+CMD may represent an alternative method for peri‑implant treatment. Further high-quality RCTs are needed to assess the influence of potential confounders on the efficacy of lasers and PDT.

Autologous Platelet Concentrates (APCs) for Hard Tissue Regeneration in Oral Implantology, Sinus Floor Elevation, Peri-Implantitis, Socket Preservation, and Medication-Related Osteonecrosis of the Jaw (MRONJ): A Literature Review

Simple Summary

Autologous platelet concentrates with high growth factor levels are used in many fields of dentistry. In recent years, the critical role of blood-derived materials in bone and soft tissue engineering has become apparent. After tooth extraction, the alveolar bone is exposed to progressive bone resorption, which can lead to difficulties in implant placement. Hence, many studies have demonstrated that APCs have the potential for soft tissue and bone regeneration. Furthermore, no inflammatory reactions occur, and they may be used alone or in combination with bone grafts, promoting bone growth and maturation. Moreover, the released growth factors and the presence of fibrin structures can induce osteogenesis. This review aims to provide information regarding the applications, indications, advantages, and disadvantages of three APC techniques in hard tissue regeneration.

Abstract

Over recent years, the usage of autologous platelet concentrates (APCs) has risen in hard tissue regeneration and oral implantology. The purpose of the present review is to offer an overview of the use of three APC techniques in dentistry: platelet-rich plasma (PRP), platelet-rich fibrin (PRF), and concentrated growth factor (CGF). A narrative summary of articles published between January 2011 and April 2022 is provided. The PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, and Embase databases were used to conduct the search. The following keywords were used in the preliminary: “VEGF”, “TGF-b1”, “PRP”, “PRF”, “CGF”, AND “sinus augmentation” OR “implants” OR “peri-implantitis” OR “socket preservation” OR “MRONJ”. A total of 82 articles was finally included. The review then takes into account the application of the three techniques in different areas of treatment—including oral implantology, sinus floor elevation, peri-implantitis, socket preservation, and medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaw (MRONJ)—as well as their advantages and disadvantages.

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.

Evaluation of Adjuvant Systems in Non-Surgical Peri-Implant Treatment: A Literature Review

Can the use of lasers, ozone, probiotics, glycine and/or erythritol, and chlorhexidine in combination with non-surgical peri-implant treatment have additional beneficial effects on the clinical parameters? Objectives: The non-surgical treatment of peri-implant pathologies is based on mechanical debridement to eliminate bacterial biofilm and reduce tissue inflammation; some additional therapies have been studied to achieve more detailed clinical results. Materials and methods: A literature search for publications until January 2022 was conducted. The research question is formulated following the Problem, Intervention, Comparison/Control, and Outcome. Studies investigating adjunctive therapies were included. Results: In total, 29 articles were included. Most of the studies did not show any additional benefit of these therapies in the evaluation of bleeding on probing, probing pocket depth, or plaque index; among the proposed treatments, the use of laser was the one most studied in the literature, with the achievement of a reduction of bleeding and pocket depth. More studies would be needed to assess the benefit of other therapies. Conclusions: This review showed no significant improvements in the state of health in support of mechanical debridement therapy. However, the few benefits found would deserve to be considered in new clinical studies.

Evaluation of Adjuvant Systems in Non-Surgical Peri-Implant Treatment: A Literature Review

Can the use of lasers, ozone, probiotics, glycine and/or erythritol, and chlorhexidine in combination with non-surgical peri-implant treatment have additional beneficial effects on the clinical parameters? Objectives: The non-surgical treatment of peri-implant pathologies is based on mechanical debridement to eliminate bacterial biofilm and reduce tissue inflammation; some additional therapies have been studied to achieve more detailed clinical results. Materials and methods: A literature search for publications until January 2022 was conducted. The research question is formulated following the Problem, Intervention, Comparison/Control, and Outcome. Studies investigating adjunctive therapies were included. Results: In total, 29 articles were included. Most of the studies did not show any additional benefit of these therapies in the evaluation of bleeding on probing, probing pocket depth, or plaque index; among the proposed treatments, the use of laser was the one most studied in the literature, with the achievement of a reduction of bleeding and pocket depth. More studies would be needed to assess the benefit of other therapies. Conclusions: This review showed no significant improvements in the state of health in support of mechanical debridement therapy. However, the few benefits found would deserve to be considered in new clinical studies.

Assessment of peri-implant parameters clinical and radiographic in obese and non-obese along with destructive pro-inflammatory cytokines IL-1β - and IL-6 treated with Photodynamic therapy

AIM

The present study aims to compare and evaluate radiographic and clinical parameters along with salivary proinflammatory cytokine profiles (IL-1β - and IL-6) in obese with peri-implantitis.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Obese and non-obese participants in the present study were 80. The nonobese and obese participants were scrutinized based on inclusion and exclusion criteria. All participants both obese and non-obese were subjected to full mouth mechanical debridement (MD). A single session of Photodynamic therapy (PDT) was provided to all obese participants. Clinical peri-implant parameters peri-implant plaque index (PIPI), Peri-implant bleeding on probing (PIBoP), peri-implant probing depth (PIPD) were assessed at baseline, three months, and six months. Marginal bone loss (MBL) was also assessed. Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) was used to check the levels of IL-1β - and IL-6 in unstimulated whole saliva samples. All the parameters were assessed using the Kruskal Wallis test and analysis of variance (ANOVA). Overall characteristics were assessed using descriptive statistics. SPSS software was used for statistical analysis.

RESULTS

Clinical baseline periodontal parameters PIPI, PIBoP, PIPD, and MBL in non-obese participants were significantly lower compared to group I obese participants at baseline (p < 0.05). At 3 months follow-up PDT adjunct to MD in group 1 obese participants PIPI and PIPD were significantly lower compared to MD alone in non-obese participants PIP1 and PIPD. At 6 months follow up, non-obese participants with peri-implantitis treated with MD demonstrated PIPI and PIPD significantly lower compared to obese participants treated with PDT adjunct to MD CONCLUSION: : PDT adjunctive to MD enhanced periodontal parameters i.e., peri-implant probing depth, peri-implant plaque index, and peri-implant bleeding on probing in obese with peri-implantitis. Moreover, obese individuals with peri-implantitis demonstrated high levels of proinflammatory cytokines IL-1β and IL-6 than control.

Laser Treatment of Peri-Implantitis: A Systematic Review of Radiographic Outcomes

(1) Background: This systematic review aimed to evaluate the effects of laser therapy on radiographic bone level (RBL) changes in peri-implantitis defects. (2) Methods: A literature search with defined inclusion criteria was performed. PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Google Scholar were searched through September 2020. The evaluated primary outcomes were RBL changes. In studies that reported RBL data, corresponding secondary clinical outcomes were probing depth (PD), bleeding on probing (BOP), and clinical attachment level (CAL). (3) Results: Thirteen articles were selected for data extraction and risk of bias assessment. Eight studies showed evidence of RBL gain in the laser groups compared to baseline, but did not report the statistical significance. Eight of these 13 studies reported comparisons to control. Five of the eight studies did not show RBL gain in the laser groups compared to control. In the laser groups compared to baseline, 11 of 13 reported reduced PD, and 6 of 13 reported significantly reduced BOP. Compared to the control, eight of the eight reported reduction of PD, and three of six reported significantly reduced BOP. Statistical significance was not consistently reported. (4) Conclusions: Within the limits of this systematic review, laser treatment may promote bone gain in peri-implantitis defects, may reduce BOP and PDs, and may be comparable to mechanical therapy. However, definitive conclusions can only be made with statistically significant data, which were found lacking in the currently available studies. This systematic review was registered with the National Institute for Health Research, international prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO): CRD42020207972.

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.

Antimicrobial photodynamic therapy versus antibiotics as an adjunct in the treatment of periodontitis and peri-implantitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Clinical efficacy of antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) as compared to antibiotics in periodontitis and peri-implantitis has been tested in several clinical trials. Yet controversial results were reported. The aim of the present study was to answer the question: "Will adjunctive antimicrobial photodynamic therapy be more effective than antibiotics agent in the treatment of periodontitis and peri-implantitis?".

METHODS

Publications compared outcomes between aPDT and antibiotics in adult patients with periodontitis or peri-implantitis, containing more than 3-month follow-up duration, were involved in the systematic review and meta-analysis. PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane Central were searched until December of 2020. Clinical parameters including pocket probing depth (PPD), clinical attachment level (CAL), and bleeding on probing (BOP) were evaluated. The risk of bias was assessed by Cochrane Collaboration Tool. Weighted mean differences (WMD), 95 % confidence interval(CI) and heterogeneity were estimated by Review Manager software.

RESULTS

10 trials in periodontitis and 5 trials in peri-implantitis were included. Meta-analysis outcomes revealed equal clinical evidence for aPDT and antibiotics in periodontitis and peri-implantitis. In addition, aPDT significantly reduced the red complex in both diseases. However, owing to the heterogeneity of protocols in articles and the limited number of studies, the comparative conclusion remained unconfirmed.

CONCLUSION

aPDT can be considered as an alternative to antibiotics in the treatment of peri-implantitis and periodontitis. Given that high heterogeneity in outcome was found in this review, future long-term clinical trials with standard aPDT and antibiotic treatment should be tested to arrive at a firm conclusion.

Levels of procalcitonin in saliva and peri-implant crevicular fluid in patients with peri-implant diseases and health

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the levels of procalcitonin in saliva and peri-implant crevicular fluid (PICF) among healthy and peri-implant disease patients and correlate these levels with clinical and radiographic peri-implant parameters.

DESIGN

Three groups of 20 participants each [Group-1: healthy, Group-2: peri-implant mucositis, and Group-3: peri-implantitis] were selected. Peri-implant plaque index, bleeding on probing, probing depth and crestal bone loss was assessed. PICF and saliva samples were evaluated for procalcitonin levels and analyzed using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Kruskal-Wallis test was performed for comparisons among the study groups. Multiple comparisons were considered for Post hoc two-group comparisons using Bonferroni-corrections. The Spearman rank correlation coefficient analysis was used to analyze the correlation between procalcitonin levels of both fluids and clinical peri-implant parameters.

RESULTS

Group-3 demonstrated significantly higher values for peri-implant plaque index, bleeding on probing, probing depth, and crestal bone loss as compared to Group-1 and Group-2. Participants of both Group-2 and Group-3 reported significantly increased procalcitonin levels in saliva and PICF in comparison to Group-1. Significant positive correlations were found between PICF procalcitonin levels and bleeding on probing, probing depth, and crestal bone loss in Group-3 and significant positive correlation was found between PICF and bleeding on probing in Group-2. For salivary procalcitonin levels, a significant positive correlation was observed between procalcitonin and bleeding on probing in Group-3.

CONCLUSIONS

The outcome of this study suggests that procalcitonin might play a role in peri-implant inflammation, and higher procalcitonin levels is suggestive of a probable surrogate biomarker for peri-implant diseases.

Clinical peri-implant health and biological bone marker levels in tobacco users treated with photodynamic therapy

BACKGROUND

What impact does tobacco smoking have on photodynamic therapy (PDT) outcome is still unknown. The aim of the present clinical trial was to evaluate the clinical, radiographic, and biological bone markers after provision of PDT in cigarette, e-cigarette, and never-smokers with peri-implantitis (PI) at 6 months post treatment.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Twenty-five healthy patients with PI were divided into three groups: Group I: cigarette smokers; Group II: e-cigarettes users; Group III: never-smokers. Full-mouth mechanical debridement with adjunctive methylene blue-mediated PDT was performed. Clinical recordings included peri-implant plaque index (Pi), bleeding on probing (BOP) and probing depth (PD). Peri-implant sulcular fluid was collected for the assessment of biological bone biomarkers including receptor activator of nuclear factor-ligand (RANK-L) and osteoprotegrin (OPG). All assessments were performed at baseline, 3 months and 6 months. P-value of <0.05 was considered significant.

RESULTS

BOP in Group II and III significantly reduced at 3 months (p < 0.05). Group I showed significant reduction only at 6 months (p < 0.05). Mean PD showed no statistically significant difference between the groups at any time-point. Inter-group comparison showed Group III demonstrating statistically significantly reduced mean RANK-L levels at both 3 and 6 months (p < 0.05). A slight increase in the OPG levels were observed at 3 months and followed by a slight decrease at 6 months for all the study groups when compared with baseline values, however, these values did not show statistical significance (p > 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Adjunctive PDT helped in reducing the clinical peri-implant inflammation. However, no significant change was observed for biological bone biomarkers among tobacco smokers.