Ismael Khouly1,2, Simon Pardiñas-López3,4,5, Ryan Richard Ruff6,7, Franz-Josef Strauss8,9,10. 1. Bluestone Center for Clinical Research, New York University College of Dentistry, 421 First Avenue - BCCR 2W, New York, NY, 10010, USA. dr.ismaelkhouly@gmail.com. 2. Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, New York University College of Dentistry, New York, NY, USA. dr.ismaelkhouly@gmail.com. 3. Bluestone Center for Clinical Research, New York University College of Dentistry, 421 First Avenue - BCCR 2W, New York, NY, 10010, USA. 4. Cell Therapy and Regenerative Medicine Group, Centre for Advanced Scientific Research (CICA), A Coruña, Spain. 5. Biomedical Research Institute of A Coruña (INIBIC) strategic group, Galician Health Service (SERGAS), Universidade da Coruña (UDC), University Hospital Complex of A Coruña (CHUAC), A Coruña, Spain. 6. Department of Epidemiology & Health Promotion, New York University College of Dentistry, New York, NY, USA. 7. New York University College of Global Public Health, New York, NY, USA. 8. Department of Oral Biology, School of Dentistry, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria. 9. Department of Conservative Dentistry, School of Dentistry, University of Chile, Santiago, Chile. 10. Clinic of Reconstructive Dentistry, Center of Dental Medicine, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis on the efficacy of growth factors (GF) on clinical outcomes after treatment (surgical/non-surgical) of peri-implant diseases (peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A protocol was developed to answer the following focused question: Is there any difference for the use of GF for treatment of peri-implant diseases versus comparative GF treatment or without GF? Electronic database and manual searches were independently conducted to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Publications were selected based on eligibility criteria and then assessed for risk-of-bias using the Cochrane Handbook. The primary outcome was probing depth (PD) and bleeding on probing (BOP) reduction along with changes in vertical defect depth (VDD). Changes in clinical attachment level, gingival recession, and plaque index, among others, were studied as secondary outcomes. Based on primary outcomes, random-effects meta-analysis was conducted. RESULTS: A total of five RCTs were included. GF enhance the reduction of PD (standardized mean difference (SMD) = - 1.28; 95% confidence interval (CI) - 1.75, - 0.79; p = < 0.0001) and BOP (SMD = - 1.23; 95% CI - 1.70, - 0.76; p = < 0.0001) in the management of peri-implant mucositis. For the treatment of peri-implantitis, the use of GF yielded to significantly greater improvement in VDD (SMD = 0.68; 95% CI 0.22, 1.14; p = 0.004); however, there were no significant differences in terms of PD (SMD = 0.08; 95% CI - 1.08, 1.26; p = 0.887) and BOP (SMD = 0.211; 95% CI - 0.20, 0.63; p = 0.317). The overall risk of bias of the included studies was low to unclear. CONCLUSION: The results of the present systematic review suggest that the addition of GF might enhance the outcomes in the treatment of peri-implant mucositis. However, there is a lack of evidence for supporting additional benefit of GF managing peri-implantitis. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Within the limitations of the current systematic review and based on the meta-analyses, (1) the addition of GF for the treatment peri-implant mucositis might be associated with better outcomes in terms of PD and BOP, and (2) an additional benefit of GF for the treatment peri-implantitis could not be determined on the basis of the selected evidence.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis on the efficacy of growth factors (GF) on clinical outcomes after treatment (surgical/non-surgical) of peri-implant diseases (peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A protocol was developed to answer the following focused question: Is there any difference for the use of GF for treatment of peri-implant diseases versus comparative GF treatment or without GF? Electronic database and manual searches were independently conducted to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Publications were selected based on eligibility criteria and then assessed for risk-of-bias using the Cochrane Handbook. The primary outcome was probing depth (PD) and bleeding on probing (BOP) reduction along with changes in vertical defect depth (VDD). Changes in clinical attachment level, gingival recession, and plaque index, among others, were studied as secondary outcomes. Based on primary outcomes, random-effects meta-analysis was conducted. RESULTS: A total of five RCTs were included. GF enhance the reduction of PD (standardized mean difference (SMD) = - 1.28; 95% confidence interval (CI) - 1.75, - 0.79; p = < 0.0001) and BOP (SMD = - 1.23; 95% CI - 1.70, - 0.76; p = < 0.0001) in the management of peri-implant mucositis. For the treatment of peri-implantitis, the use of GF yielded to significantly greater improvement in VDD (SMD = 0.68; 95% CI 0.22, 1.14; p = 0.004); however, there were no significant differences in terms of PD (SMD = 0.08; 95% CI - 1.08, 1.26; p = 0.887) and BOP (SMD = 0.211; 95% CI - 0.20, 0.63; p = 0.317). The overall risk of bias of the included studies was low to unclear. CONCLUSION: The results of the present systematic review suggest that the addition of GF might enhance the outcomes in the treatment of peri-implant mucositis. However, there is a lack of evidence for supporting additional benefit of GF managing peri-implantitis. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Within the limitations of the current systematic review and based on the meta-analyses, (1) the addition of GF for the treatment peri-implant mucositis might be associated with better outcomes in terms of PD and BOP, and (2) an additional benefit of GF for the treatment peri-implantitis could not be determined on the basis of the selected evidence.