One-year clinical outcomes following non-surgical treatment of peri-implant mucositis with adjunctive diode laser application

Is Laser Therapy an Adjuvant in the Treatment of Peri-Implant Mucositis? A Randomized Clinical Trial

(1) Background: Early diagnosis and treatment of peri-implant mucositis may reduce inflammatory markers and halt the progression of the condition to peri-implantitis. Adjunctive laser treatment may have therapeutic benefits that are not yet well known. The aim of this study was to determine the advantages and limitations of laser therapy as an adjuvant in the treatment of peri-implant mucositis. (2) Methods: A total of 42 patients with at least 2 implants situated in different hemiarches were included in this study and divided into two groups: G1 (received laser therapy) and G2 (no laser therapy). Periodontal health status indices were recorded at the initial moment (T0), and all patients underwent non-surgical debridement therapy accompanied by oral hygiene training. In patients from group G1, one implant site received adjuvant laser therapy (subgroup IL), and the other one did not receive active laser light (IC). The plaque index (PI), probing pocket depth (PPD), and bleeding on probing (BOP) values recorded after 3 months (T1) and 6 months (T2) were analyzed and compared with those at T0. (3) Results: PI values considerably reduced at moment T1 and T2 for both G1 and G2 (p = 0.0031). PPD was also reduced, but the difference between the groups and the three recording moments was not statistically significant. Statistically significant differences were found when comparing the BOP values between G1 IL and G1 IC for T0/T1 (p = 0.0182) and T1/T2 (p < 0.0001), but there was no significant difference between G2 and G1 IL or G1 IC. (4) Conclusions: Laser therapy as an adjunct to conventional treatment of peri-implant mucositis leads to a statistically significant reduction in bleeding on probing at 3-month and 6-month re-evaluations. Moreover, it leads to an evident reduction in probing depth but with no statistical significance. These results should be interpreted with caution, and more in-depth research should be performed to create a complete laser therapy protocol for peri-implant mucositis.

Diode Laser as an Adjunctive Treatment for Peri-implant Mucositis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

The early detection and management of peri-implant mucositis may help in reducing inflammatory parameters and arrest disease progression to peri-implantitis. The potential therapeutic benefits of different adjunctive therapies, such as the diode laser, are still not completely understood. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analyses was to assess the outcomes of using diode laser on the management of peri-implant mucositis in terms of changes in periodontal parameters. Electronic databases were searched to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the combined use of mechanical debridement and diode laser with mechanical debridement alone. A specific risk-of-bias tool was used to assess the risk of bias. Data were analysed using a statistical software programme. In total, 149 studies were found. A meta-analysis of 3 RCTs showed no statistically significant differences in probing pocket depths (mean difference [MD], −0.36; 95% confidence interval [CI], −0.88 to 0.16; P = .18) or bleeding on probing (MD, −0.71; 95% CI, 1.58–0.16; P = .11) between the 2 groups at 3 months. In the management of peri-implant mucositis, the combined use of diode laser and mechanical debridement did not provide any additional clinical advantage over mechanical debridement alone. Long-term, well-designed RCTs are still needed.

Evaluation of Adjuvant Systems in Non-Surgical Peri-Implant Treatment: A Literature Review

Can the use of lasers, ozone, probiotics, glycine and/or erythritol, and chlorhexidine in combination with non-surgical peri-implant treatment have additional beneficial effects on the clinical parameters? Objectives: The non-surgical treatment of peri-implant pathologies is based on mechanical debridement to eliminate bacterial biofilm and reduce tissue inflammation; some additional therapies have been studied to achieve more detailed clinical results. Materials and methods: A literature search for publications until January 2022 was conducted. The research question is formulated following the Problem, Intervention, Comparison/Control, and Outcome. Studies investigating adjunctive therapies were included. Results: In total, 29 articles were included. Most of the studies did not show any additional benefit of these therapies in the evaluation of bleeding on probing, probing pocket depth, or plaque index; among the proposed treatments, the use of laser was the one most studied in the literature, with the achievement of a reduction of bleeding and pocket depth. More studies would be needed to assess the benefit of other therapies. Conclusions: This review showed no significant improvements in the state of health in support of mechanical debridement therapy. However, the few benefits found would deserve to be considered in new clinical studies.

Evaluation of Adjuvant Systems in Non-Surgical Peri-Implant Treatment: A Literature Review

Can the use of lasers, ozone, probiotics, glycine and/or erythritol, and chlorhexidine in combination with non-surgical peri-implant treatment have additional beneficial effects on the clinical parameters? Objectives: The non-surgical treatment of peri-implant pathologies is based on mechanical debridement to eliminate bacterial biofilm and reduce tissue inflammation; some additional therapies have been studied to achieve more detailed clinical results. Materials and methods: A literature search for publications until January 2022 was conducted. The research question is formulated following the Problem, Intervention, Comparison/Control, and Outcome. Studies investigating adjunctive therapies were included. Results: In total, 29 articles were included. Most of the studies did not show any additional benefit of these therapies in the evaluation of bleeding on probing, probing pocket depth, or plaque index; among the proposed treatments, the use of laser was the one most studied in the literature, with the achievement of a reduction of bleeding and pocket depth. More studies would be needed to assess the benefit of other therapies. Conclusions: This review showed no significant improvements in the state of health in support of mechanical debridement therapy. However, the few benefits found would deserve to be considered in new clinical studies.

Efficacy of alternative or adjunctive measures to conventional non-surgical and surgical treatment of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Purpose

To evaluate the efficacy of alternative or adjunctive measures to conventional non-surgical or surgical treatment of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis.

Material and methods

Prospective randomized and nonrandomized controlled studies comparing alternative or adjunctive measures, and reporting on changes in bleeding scores (i.e., bleed0ing index (BI) or bleeding on probing (BOP)), probing depth (PD) values or suppuration (SUPP) were searched.

Results

Peri-implant mucositis: adjunctive use of local antiseptics lead to greater PD reduction (weighted mean difference (WMD) = − 0.23 mm; p = 0.03, respectively), whereas changes in BOP were comparable (WMD = − 5.30%; p = 0.29). Non-surgical treatment of peri-implantitis: alternative measures for biofilm removal and systemic antibiotics yielded higher BOP reduction (WMD = − 28.09%; p = 0.01 and WMD = − 17.35%; p = 0.01, respectively). Surgical non-reconstructive peri-implantitis treatment: WMD in PD amounted to − 1.11 mm favoring adjunctive implantoplasty (p = 0.02). Adjunctive reconstructive measures lead to significantly higher radiographic bone defect fill/reduction (WMD = 56.46%; p = 0.01 and WMD = − 1.47 mm; p = 0.01), PD (− 0.51 mm; p = 0.01) and lower soft-tissue recession (WMD = − 0.63 mm; p = 0.01), while changes in BOP were not significant (WMD = − 11.11%; p = 0.11).

Conclusions

Alternative and adjunctive measures provided no beneficial effect in resolving peri-implant mucositis, while alternative measures were superior in reducing BOP values following non-surgical treatment of peri-implantitis. Adjunctive reconstructive measures were beneficial regarding radiographic bone-defect fill/reduction, PD reduction and lower soft-tissue recession, although they did not improve the resolution of mucosal inflammation.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40729-021-00388-x.