| dc.description.abstract | Background:
Non-surgical treatment of peri-implantitis may help in reducing microbial load and inflammatory parameters. The potential clinical benefits of using different treatment approaches, in the initial non-surgical treatment phase, particularly the airflow, are still not clear. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analyses was to evaluate the outcomes of non-surgical treatment of peri-implantitis using airflow method in terms of changes in periodontal parameters, peri-implant marginal bone level, postoperative pain/discomfort and patient satisfaction.
Methods:
Electronic databases were searched to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared airflow with mechanical debridement using ultrasonic/curettes. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration’s Risk of Bias tool. Data were analyzed using a statistical software program.
Results:
A total of 316 studies were identified, of which, five RCTs with 288 dental implants in 174 participants were included. Overall meta-analysis showed more reduction in probing pocket depths at one to three months (mean difference (MD) -0.23; 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.50 to 0.05; P = 0.10) and six months (MD -0.04; 95% CI -0.34 to 0.27; P = 0.80) in favour of airflow, but the difference was not statistically significant. The use of airflow was associated with significant reduction in bleeding on probing and increase in peri-implant mucosal recession. The differences in plaque score, peri-implant marginal bone level changes, and patient reported outcomes between airflow and mechanical debridement were not statistically significant.
Conclusions:
The short-term clinical and radiographic outcomes following non-sugical treatment of peri-implantitis using airflow or mechanical debridement were comparable. The airflow has short-term positive effects on reducing bleeding on probing. Further evidence from RCTs are still required to substantiate the current findings. | en_US |
