Efficacy of concentrated growth factor versus collagen membrane in reconstructive surgical therapy of peri-implantitis: 3-year results of a randomized clinical trial

İşler, Sıla Çağrı; Soysal, Fatma Selda Öz; Ceyhanlı, Tugce; Bakırarar, Batuhan

doi:10.1007/s00784-022-04493-y

Cited by 15 publications

(54 citation statements)

References 53 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Only two studies specifically referred to the European Federation of Periodontology (EFP) definition of peri-implantitis (Isler et al, 2018;Gonzalez Regueiro et al, 2021;Isler et al, 2022).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The efficacy of bone reconstructive therapies in the management of peri‐implantitis. A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Donos

Calciolari

Ghuman

et al. 2023

J Clinic Periodontology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim To evaluate the efficacy of bone reconstructive procedures for the reduction of probing pocket depth (PPD), bleeding on probing (BOP), and suppuration in peri‐implantitis‐related bone defects at ≥12‐month follow‐up. Materials and Methods Three databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) that compared bone reconstructive therapies to access flap surgery (AFS) (Focused Question—FQ 1), and RCTs, CCTs, and prospective case series that assessed the efficacy of reconstructive therapies (FQ 2). Meta‐analysis was performed for FQ1 when more than three studies were identified, while for FQ2 a network was drawn based on RCTs with common treatment arms. Results Seven RCTs were identified for FQ1 while five RCTs and six prospective case series for FQ2. There was no significant difference in PPD change between AFS and reconstructive surgery (−0.387; p = .325) at 12 months. Furthermore, no clear differences in terms of PPD and BOP changes resulted from the different reconstructive therapies included in the network. Only a small percentage of treated cases with any modality achieved peri‐implantitis resolution, as defined by different composite outcomes. Conclusions Reconstructive surgery does not offer significant improvements in peri‐implant clinical parameters as compared to AFS at 12 months. It was not possible to establish a hierarchy of efficacy among the different biomaterials employed for reconstructive surgery.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The efficacy of bone reconstructive therapies in the management of peri‐implantitis. A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Donos

Calciolari

Ghuman

et al. 2023

J Clinic Periodontology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The effect of platelet rich fibrin (PRF) membranes on peri‐implant bone regeneration was observed in a recent RCT with a 3‐year follow‐up. The use of a CM compared to PRF membrane in combination with a bone substitute in surgical peri‐implantitis therapy revealed that the CM group led to a larger decrease in PPD and slightly better outcomes compared to the PRF membranes 80 …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The use of a CM compared to PRF membrane in combination with a bone substitute in surgical peri-implantitis therapy revealed that the CM group led to a larger decrease in PPD and slightly better outcomes compared to the PRF membranes. 80…”

Section: Growth Factorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bone regeneration as treatment of peri‐implant disease: A narrative review

Noelken

2023

Clin Implant Dent Rel Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction Analysis of the 3‐dimensional implant position, the bone defect morphology, and the soft tissue situation guides the decision to preserve or to remove an implant with a severe peri‐implantitis lesion. The aim of this narrative review was to analyze and to comprehensively illustrate the treatment options focusing on peri‐implant bone regeneration in presence of severe peri‐implant bone loss. Methods A database search was performed independently by the two reviewers to identify case reports, case series, cohort, retrospective, and prospective studies about peri‐implant bone regeneration with a follow‐up of at least 6 months. Of the 344 studies issued during the database analysis, 96 publications were selected by the authors for this review. Results Deproteinized bovine bone mineral remains the best documented material for defect regeneration in peri‐implantitis in combination with or without a barrier membrane. While studies using autogenous bone in peri‐implantitis therapy are rarely found, they do report favorable potential of vertical bone regeneration. Moreover, while membranes are an inherent part of the guided bone regeneration, a 5‐year follow‐up study demonstrated clinical and radiographic improvements with and without a membrane. The administration of systemic antibiotics is frequently performed in clinical studies observing regenerative surgical peri‐implantitis therapy, but the analysis of the literature does not support a positive effect of this medication. Most studies for regenerative peri‐implantitis surgery recommend the removal of the prosthetic rehabilitation and the use a marginal incision with a full‐thickness access flap elevation. This allows for a good overview for regenerative procedures with a certain risk of wound dehiscences and incomplete regeneration. An alternative approach referring to the poncho technique may reduce the risk of dehiscence. The effectiveness of implant surface decontamination might have an impact on peri‐implant bone regeneration without any clinical superiority of a certain technique. Conclusion The available literature reveals that the success of peri‐implantitis therapy is limited to the reduction of bleeding on probing, the improvement of the peri‐implant probing depth and a small amount of vertical defect fill. On this basis, no specific recommendations for bone regeneration in surgical peri‐implantitis therapy can be made. Innovative approaches for flap design, surface decontamination, bone defect grafting material, and soft tissue augmentation should be followed closely to find advanced techniques for favorable peri‐implant bone augmentation.

show abstract

“…In addition, the application of xenogenic bone filler in combination with a resorbable collagen membrane displayed more predictable outcomes in terms of disease resolution than the application of a synthetic bone filler alone 57 . Furthermore, comparison of a concentrated growth‐factor membrane to a collagen membrane along with xenogenic bone filler resulted in greater PD reduction, whereas changes in BOP and radiographic defect fill were similar between the two treatment groups 27,31 …”

Section: Reconstructive Therapymentioning

confidence: 98%

Surgical interventions for the treatment of peri‐implantitis

Ramanauskaitė

Cafferata

Begić

et al. 2022

Clin Implant Dent Rel Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Efficacy of concentrated growth factor versus collagen membrane in reconstructive surgical therapy of peri-implantitis: 3-year results of a randomized clinical trial

Cited by 15 publications

References 53 publications

The efficacy of bone reconstructive therapies in the management of peri‐implantitis. A systematic review and meta‐analysis

The efficacy of bone reconstructive therapies in the management of peri‐implantitis. A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Bone regeneration as treatment of peri‐implant disease: A narrative review

Surgical interventions for the treatment of peri‐implantitis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About