Surgical therapy of single peri‐implantitis intrabony defects, by means of deproteinized bovine bone mineral with 10% collagen

Abstract

These results confirm the possibility to successfully treat peri-implantitis lesions. There is lack of evidence of whether or not the resolution of the peri-implant disease is associated with the defect configuration. Due to the fact that complete resolution does not seem a predictable outcome, the clinical decision on whether implants should be treated should be based on several patient related elements.

Surgical Regenerative Treatments for Peri-Implantitis: Meta-analysis of Recent Findings in a Systematic Literature Review

“…Eight prospective clinical studies [22,23,28,29,34,36,38,39], seven case series [24-27,30,33,35], and three randomized clinical trials (RCTs) [31,32,37] were included for the final review. A total of 528 patients (713 implants) were treated.…”

“…The mean age of the patients was 61 years (ranged from 20 to 83 years) with the mean observation period of 37 months (ranging from 12 to 236 months). Eleven studies [23-25,27,29,31,32,35-37,39] reported smoking status of the patients, ranging from 14% [39] to 72% [36]. The summarized individual study characteristics are described in Table 2.…”

“…Eight studies included rough surface dental implants [26,29,30,31,32,35,37,39], three studies investigated machined surface implants [23,24,36] and five studies - both rough and machined surface dental implants [22,25,27,28]. The remaining two studies did not reveal implant surface specifications [33,38].…”

“…Most commonly xenografts [25-31,34,35,38,39] were utilized as well as other grafting materials, including flourhydroxyapatites [23,24,36], autografts [26,31], allografts [30,39], porous titanium granules [32,37], and comixtures of several different grafts [22,33]. There were more study groups using barrier membranes [22-28,30,31,34-36,38], than study groups, without barrier membranes utilized to cover the grafted area [23,25,27,29,32,33,36,37,39]. Due to high heterogeneity of the studies, statistical comparisons among different grafting materials and membrane types were not intended.…”

“…Summarizing the risk of bias for each study, most of the studies were classified as unclear risk [22-25,27-29,34-36,38,39]. Two studies were considered as having low risk of bias [32,37], where as another one was classified as moderate risk [31], and three studies were attributed to high risk of bias [26,30,33].…”