Search

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). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The authors aimed to compare the survival and complication rates of zirconia-ceramic (ZC) versus metal-ceramic (MC) restorative material in multiunit tooth-supported posterior fixed dental prostheses (FDP). The authors conducted a systematic search of randomized controlled trials (RCTs), with no time or language restrictions, up to May 2019 using the MEDLINE (PubMed), Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases, followed by a manual search. The authors included 7 RCTs in the review and 5 RCTs in the meta-analysis. All studies had a low risk of bias. The authors included 330 participants (177 ZC and 173 MC tooth-supported FDP) in the meta-analysis, which revealed a medium-term survival rate of 95.4% (95% confidence interval [CI], 90.5% to 99.1%) for ZC FDP compared with 96.9% (95% CI, 94.3% to 99.4%) for MC FDP, with no significant differences (P =.364). The biological or technical complications did not show statistically significant differences, except in the global ceramic veneering chipping analysis (P =.023; risk difference [RD], 22.3%; 95% CI, 3.0% to 41.6%) and their subanalysis: minor chipping or chipping that can be solved with polishing (P =.044; RD, 19.5%; 95% CI, 0.5% to 38.4%), and major chipping or chipping that needs repair in the laboratory (P =.023; RD, 6.0%; 95% CI, 0.8% to 11.3%). Posterior multiunit ZC restorations are considered a predictable treatment in the medium term, although they are slightly more susceptible to chipping of the veneering ceramic than MC restorations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]