Jinxia Gao1, Shuchen Yu2, Xiufeng Zhu2, Yuzhu Yan2, Yuchen Zhang2, Dandan Pei3. 1. Key Laboratory of Shaanxi Province for Craniofacial Precision Medicine Research, College of Stomatology, Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, China; Department of Prosthodontics, College of Stomatology, Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, China. 2. Key Laboratory of Shaanxi Province for Craniofacial Precision Medicine Research, College of Stomatology, Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, China. 3. Key Laboratory of Shaanxi Province for Craniofacial Precision Medicine Research, College of Stomatology, Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, China; Department of Prosthodontics, College of Stomatology, Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, China. Electronic address: peidandan1986@126.com.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the additional effect of probiotic Lactobacillus in the nonsurgical management of peri-implant diseases (peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis). METHODS: Six databases were searched up to May 2019 without time and language restrictions. Study selection and data extraction were conducted independently by 2 reviewers. The inclusion criteria for this systematic review were defined based on the participants, intervention, comparison, outcomes, and study design (PICOS) format. Randomized controlled trials comparing nonsurgical treatment combined with probiotic Lactobacillus or placebo agent in patients with peri-implant diseases were included. The methodological quality of retrieved studies was assessed according to the Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias tool, and the quality of evidence was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) tool. Odds ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) were used to describe dichotomous data, while mean difference and standardized mean difference with 95% CI were used to describe continuous variables. RESULTS: Seven randomized controlled trials with 296 implants were included in this meta-analysis. The mean difference of probing pocket depth (PPD) was -0.05 (95% CI: -0.28 to 0.18; P = .67) immediately after treatment termination and -0.17 (95% CI: -1.01 to 0.67, P = .69) at least 2 months after treatment termination. There was a slight reduction of PPD after treatment termination. Compared with placebo, Lactobacillus provided limited benefits in peri-implant mucositis. There were no significant differences in the secondary outcomes of bleeding on probing or plaque index (P > .05). In a narrative synthesis of peri-implantitis, the effect of Lactobacillus on PPD and bleeding on probing remained controversial. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review and meta-analysis showed that probiotic Lactobacillus provide limited benefits to the nonsurgical treatment of peri-implant mucositis or peri-implantitis.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the additional effect of probiotic Lactobacillus in the nonsurgical management of peri-implant diseases (peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis). METHODS: Six databases were searched up to May 2019 without time and language restrictions. Study selection and data extraction were conducted independently by 2 reviewers. The inclusion criteria for this systematic review were defined based on the participants, intervention, comparison, outcomes, and study design (PICOS) format. Randomized controlled trials comparing nonsurgical treatment combined with probiotic Lactobacillus or placebo agent in patients with peri-implant diseases were included. The methodological quality of retrieved studies was assessed according to the Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias tool, and the quality of evidence was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) tool. Odds ratio and 95% confidence interval (CI) were used to describe dichotomous data, while mean difference and standardized mean difference with 95% CI were used to describe continuous variables. RESULTS: Seven randomized controlled trials with 296 implants were included in this meta-analysis. The mean difference of probing pocket depth (PPD) was -0.05 (95% CI: -0.28 to 0.18; P = .67) immediately after treatment termination and -0.17 (95% CI: -1.01 to 0.67, P = .69) at least 2 months after treatment termination. There was a slight reduction of PPD after treatment termination. Compared with placebo, Lactobacillus provided limited benefits in peri-implant mucositis. There were no significant differences in the secondary outcomes of bleeding on probing or plaque index (P > .05). In a narrative synthesis of peri-implantitis, the effect of Lactobacillus on PPD and bleeding on probing remained controversial. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review and meta-analysis showed that probiotic Lactobacillus provide limited benefits to the nonsurgical treatment of peri-implant mucositis or peri-implantitis.
Authors: Allan Radaic; Hanna Brody; Fernando Contreras; Maryam Hajfathalian; Luke Lucido; Pachiyappan Kamarajan; Yvonne L Kapila Journal: Microorganisms Date: 2022-07-01