Which is the most suitable local anaesthetic when inferior nerve blocks are used for impacted mandibular third molar extraction? A network meta-analysis

The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of the different local anaesthetic agents for the extraction of impacted lower third molars. A network meta-analysis was performed of all published reports of randomized controlled clinical trials assessing efficacy (anaesthetic success and absence of need for supplementary anaesthesia during the surgical procedure) and/or safety (number of adverse events) of anaesthetic agents. Three electronic databases were searched, from their earliest records up to April 2019. Additionally, the grey literature was searched to identify further potential candidates for inclusion. Anaesthesia had to be delivered by an inferior alveolar nerve block, complemented with infiltration anaesthesia of the buccal nerve. The quality of the studies was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration tool. This study included a total of 21 trials (2021 molars) assessing the efficacy and 19 trials (1977 molars) assessing the safety of 11 anaesthetic solutions. Seven of the studies included were considered to have a high risk of bias. The most effective local anaesthetic for the extraction of impacted mandibular third molars appeared to be 4% articaine, with significant differences when compared with 2% lidocaine, 0.5% bupivacaine, and 1% ropivacaine. Lidocaine is the safest local anaesthetic, although all investigated solutions can be used safely.

Distal caries of the second molar in the presence of a mandibular third molar - a prevention protocol

Objectives The objectives of the prospective study were to establish the prevalence of distal caries (DC) in the mandibular second molar and to assess the outcomes of these diseased teeth in our population. Further aims were to identify associated risk factors and to design a protocol for prevention.Methods Clinical and radiographic data from 210 consecutive patients were ascertained over a three-month period. The sample population included all patients who had been referred to a hospital oral surgery department for a lower wisdom tooth assessment.Results A total of 224 mandibular third molars were included and assessed. The prevalence of caries affecting the distal aspect of the second molar was 38% (n = 85) in this population. In 18% of patients there was evidence of early enamel caries. Fifty-eight percent of caries was managed with restorative treatment but 11% of patients required second molar extraction and 13% of patients required the removal of the second and third molars. The prevalence of distal caries was significantly higher in patients with partially erupted wisdom teeth positioned below the amelocemental junction (P <0.05) of the adjacent second molar and in patients who presented with mesioangular impactions (P <0.001). However there was no difference in dental health when comparing this group to the remaining study population (P = 0.354). The Pearson chi-square test and Pearson correlation coefficient were used to verify the association between the tested variables.Conclusion This study demonstrates that the eruption status, type of angulation and the nature of tooth contact between both molars are useful disease predictors which can be used to indicate the likelihood of a caries process occurring on the distal aspect of the second mandibular molar. If patients' third molar teeth are not removed then consideration needs to be given to prevention and regular monitoring.

Ibuprofen and/or paracetamol (acetaminophen) for pain relief after surgical removal of lower wisdom teeth, a Cochrane systematic review

This paper compares the beneficial and harmful effects of paracetamol, ibuprofen and the novel combination of both in a single tablet for pain relief following the surgical removal of lower wisdom teeth. In this systematic review only randomised controlled double-blinded clinical trials were included. We calculated the proportion of patients with at least 50% pain relief at 2 and 6 hours post dosing, along with the proportion of participants using rescue medication at 6 and 8 hours. Adverse events were also analysed. Data was meta-analysed where possible. Seven studies were included with a total of 2,241 participants enrolled. Ibuprofen 400 mg is superior to 1,000 mg paracetamol with a risk ratio for at least 50% pain relief at 6 hours of 1.47 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.28 to 1.69). For the combined drug, the risk ratio for at least 50% maximum pain relief over 6 hours is 1.77 (95% CI 1.32 to 2.39) based on total pain relief (TOTPAR) data. There is high quality evidence that ibuprofen is superior to paracetamol. The novel combination drug shows encouraging results when compared to the single drugs (based on two trials).

The implications of substance misuse for intravenous conscious sedation practice

Substance misuse is a major health concern in the United Kingdom, as the consequences for individuals are significant and may include multisystem organ damage. It is important for the dentist to know which patients are misusing substances as some pharmacological agents routinely used in dental practice may be contraindicated. The dentist should be aware of the range of clinical presentations that may arise from substance misuse and when suspected, a thorough drug history must be obtained. Patients may require special consideration and further investigations when planning elective procedures, particularly under intravenous conscious sedation. Therefore, management within a specialist centre and liaison with other health professionals may be indicated to ensure treatment is provided safely.

Reducing postoperative pain by changing the process

Untreated postoperative pain is an important ethical and financial issue that can lead to unnecessary suffering and prolonged stays in hospital. Despite the availability of effective analgesics and a growing body of published material that supports their use, postoperative pain remains a problem worldwide. To reduce acute postoperative pain, we introduced an intervention combining evidence-based analgesic protocols with the education of staff and patients on a surgical ward. The experiences of 68 patients before and 80 patients after the intervention were compared (worst pain scores, duration of pain, and satisfaction). Inadequately controlled pain was significantly reduced after the intervention, which suggests that the introduction of analgesic protocols supported by the education of staff and patients can be beneficial. Despite this, severe pain remained relatively common, indicating room for improvement. Duration of pain and patient satisfaction were not affected by the intervention, and patient satisfaction remained high throughout the study.

Interventions for replacing missing teeth: treatment of perimplantitis

BACKGROUND

One of the key factors for the long-term success of oral implants is the maintenance of healthy tissues around them. Bacterial plaque accumulation induces inflammatory changes in the soft tissues surrounding oral implants and it may lead to their progressive destruction (perimplantitis) and ultimately to implant failure. Different treatment strategies for perimplantitis have been suggested, however it is unclear which are the most effective.

OBJECTIVES

To identify the most effective interventions for treating perimplantitis around osseointegrated dental implants.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and EMBASE. Handsearching included several dental journals. We checked the bibliographies of the identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and relevant review articles for studies outside the handsearched journals. We wrote to authors of all identified RCTs, to more than 55 dental implant manufacturers and an Internet discussion group to find unpublished or ongoing RCTs. No language restrictions were applied. The last electronic search was conducted on 9 January 2008.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All RCTs comparing agents or interventions for treating perimplantitis around dental implants.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Screening of eligible studies, assessment of the methodological quality of the trials and data extraction were conducted in duplicate and independently by two review authors. We contacted the authors for missing information. Results were expressed as random-effects models using weighted mean differences for continuous outcomes and risk ratios for dichotomous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Heterogeneity was to be investigated including both clinical and methodological factors.

MAIN RESULTS

Ten eligible trials were identified, but three were excluded. The following procedures were tested: (1) use of local antibiotics versus ultrasonic debridement; (2) benefits of adjunctive local antibiotics to debridement; (3) different techniques of subgingival debridement; (4) laser versus manual debridement and chlorhexidine irrigation/gel; (5) systemic antibiotics plus resective surgery plus two different local antibiotics with and without implant surface smoothening; and (6) nanocrystalline hydroxyapatite versus Bio-Oss and resorbable barriers. Follow up ranged from 3 months to 2 years. The only statistically significant differences were observed in two trials judged to be at high risk of bias. After 4 months, adjunctive local antibiotics to manual debridement in patients who lost at least 50% of the bone around implants showed improved mean probing attachment levels (PAL) of 0.61 mm and reduced probing pockets depths (PPD) of 0.59 mm. After 6 months, patients with perimplant infrabony defects > 3 mm treated with Bio-Oss and resorbable barriers gained 0.5 mm more PAL (borderline difference) and PPD than patients treated with a nanocrystalline hydroxyapatite.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is very little reliable evidence suggesting which could be the most effective interventions for treating perimplantitis. This is not to say that currently used interventions are not effective. The use of local antibiotics in addition to manual subgingival debridement was associated with a 0.6 mm additional improvement for PAL and PPD over a 4-month period in patients affected by severe forms of perimplantitis. After 6 months both augmentation therapies appeared to be successful but improved PAL and PPD (0.5 mm) were obtained when using Bio-Oss with resorbable barriers. In four trials, the control therapy which basically consisted of a simple subgingival mechanical debridement seemed to be sufficient to achieve results similar to the more complex and expensive therapies. Sample sizes were very small and follow up too short, therefore these conclusions have to be considered with great caution. Larger well-designed RCTs are needed.

Interventions for replacing missing teeth: maintaining and recovering soft tissue health around dental implants

BACKGROUND

It is important to institute an effective supportive therapy to maintain or recover soft tissue health around dental implants. Different maintenance regimens have been suggested, however it is unclear which are the most effective.

OBJECTIVES

To test the null hypotheses of no difference between different interventions (1) for maintaining healthy peri-implant soft tissues, and (2) for recovering soft tissue health, against the alternative hypothesis of a difference.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and EMBASE. Handsearching included several dental journals. We checked the bibliographies of the identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and relevant review articles for studies outside the handsearched journals. We wrote to authors of all identified RCTs, to more than 55 oral implant manufacturers and to an internet discussion group to find unpublished or ongoing RCTs. No language restrictions were applied. The last electronic search was conducted on 13 June 2007.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All randomised controlled trials comparing agents or interventions for maintaining or recovering healthy tissues around dental implants.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Screening of eligible studies, assessment of the methodological quality of the trials and data extraction were conducted in duplicate and independently by two review authors. Results were expressed as random-effects models using standardised mean differences for continuous data and risk ratios for dichotomous data with 95% confidence intervals.

MAIN RESULTS

Eighteen RCTs were identified. Nine of these trials, which reported results from a total of 238 patients, were included. Follow ups ranged between 6 weeks and 1 year. No meta-analysis could be made since every RCT tested different interventions. Listerine mouthwash showed a reduction of 54% in plaque and 34% in marginal bleeding compared with a placebo. Two trials evaluated the efficacy of powered and sonic toothbrushes compared to manual toothbrushing and showed no statistically significant differences, though more patients liked the sonic brush. No statistical differences were found between brushing with a hyaluronic or a chlorhexidine gel, between cleaning with an etching gel or manually, between injecting a chlorhexidine or a physiologic solution inside the implant's inner part and between submucosal minocycline and a chlorhexidine gel. When an amine fluoride/stannous fluoride (AmF/SnF(2)) mouthrinse was compared with a chlorhexidine one, no statistically significant differences were found for implant failures and staining index while patients preferred and had less taste change with the AmF/SnF(2) mouthrinse. Self administered subgingival chlorhexidine irrigation resulted in statistically significantly lower plaque and marginal bleeding than a chlorhexidine mouthwash, however the mouthwash was given at a suboptimal dosage.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There was only little reliable evidence for which are the most effective interventions for maintaining or recovering health of peri-implant soft tissues. The included RCTs had short follow-up periods and few subjects. There was not any reliable evidence for the most effective regimens for long term maintenance. This should not be interpreted as current maintenance regimens are ineffective. There was weak evidence that Listerine mouthwash, used twice a day for 30 seconds, as an adjunct to routine oral hygiene, is effective in reducing plaque and marginal bleeding around implants. More RCTs should be conducted in this area. In particular, there is a definite need for trials powered to find possible differences, using primary outcome measures and with much longer follow up. Such trials should be reported according to the CONSORT guidelines (http://www.consort-statement.org/).

Interventions for replacing missing teeth: hyperbaric oxygen therapy for irradiated patients who require dental implants

BACKGROUND

Dental implants offer one way to replace missing teeth. Patients who have undergone radiotherapy and those that have also undergone surgery for cancer in the head and neck region may benefit particularly from reconstruction with implants. Hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBO) has been advocated to improve the success of implant treatment in patients who have undergone radiotherapy but this remains a controversial issue.

OBJECTIVES

To compare success, morbidity, patient satisfaction and cost effectiveness of dental implant treatment carried out with and without HBO in irradiated patients.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and EMBASE. Handsearching included several dental journals. We checked the bibliographies of relevant clinical trials and review articles for studies outside the handsearched journals. We wrote to authors of the identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs), to more than 55 oral implant manufacturers; we used personal contacts and we asked on an internet discussion group in an attempt to identify unpublished or ongoing RCTs. No language restriction was applied. The last electronic search was conducted on 13 June 2007.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials of HBO therapy for irradiated patients requiring dental implants.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Screening of eligible studies, assessment of the methodological quality of the trials and data extraction were conducted in duplicate and independently by two review authors. Results were expressed as random-effects models using mean differences for continuous outcomes and risk ratios for dichotomous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals.

MAIN RESULTS

Only one RCT was identified and included. Thirteen patients received HBO therapy while other 13 did not. Two to six implants were placed in fully edentulous mandibles to be rehabilitated with bar-retained overdentures. One year after implant loading four patients died from each group. One patient, treated with HBO, developed an osteoradionecrosis and lost all implants so the prosthesis could not be provided. Five patients in the HBO group had at least one implant failure versus two in the control group. There were no statistically significant differences for prosthesis and implant failures, postoperative complications and patient satisfaction between the two groups.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Despite the limited amount of clinical research available, it appears that HBO therapy in irradiated patients requiring dental implants may not offer any appreciable clinical benefits. There is a definite need for more RCTs to ascertain the effectiveness of HBO in irradiated patients requiring dental implants. These trials ought to be of a high quality and reported as recommended by the CONSORT statement (http://www.consort-statement.org/). Each clinical centre may have limited numbers of patients and it is likely that trials will need to be multicentred.

Interventions for replacing missing teeth: different types of dental implants

BACKGROUND

Dental implants are available in different materials, shapes and with different surface characteristics. In particular, numerous implant surface modifications have been developed for enhancing clinical performance.

OBJECTIVES

To test the null hypothesis of no difference in clinical performance between various root-formed osseointegrated dental implant types.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and EMBASE. Handsearching included several dental journals. We checked the bibliographies of relevant clinical trials and review articles for studies outside the handsearched journals. We wrote to authors of the identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs), to more than 55 oral implant manufacturers; we used personal contacts and we asked on an internet discussion group in an attempt to identify unpublished or ongoing RCTs. No language restriction was applied. The last electronic search was conducted on 13 June 2007.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All RCTs of oral implants comparing osseointegrated implants with different materials, shapes and surface properties having a follow up of at least 1 year.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Screening of eligible studies, assessment of the methodological quality of the trials and data extraction were conducted in duplicate and independently by two review authors. Results were expressed as random-effects models using mean differences for continuous outcomes and risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CI).

MAIN RESULTS

Forty different RCTs were identified. Sixteen of these RCTs, reporting results from a total of 771 patients, were suitable for inclusion in the review. Eighteen different implant types were compared with a follow up ranging from 1 to 5 years. All implants were made in commercially pure titanium and had different shapes and surface preparations. On a 'per patient' rather than 'per implant' basis no significant differences were observed between various implant types for implant failures. There were statistically significant differences for perimplant bone level changes on intraoral radiographs in three comparisons in two trials. In one trial there was more bone loss only at 1 year for IMZ implants compared to Brånemark (mean difference 0.60 mm; 95% CI 0.01 to 1.10) and to ITI implants (mean difference 0.50 mm; 95% CI 0.01 to 0.99). In the other trial Southern implants displayed more bone loss at 5 years than Steri-Oss implants (mean difference -0.35 mm; 95% CI -0.70 to -0.01). However this difference disappeared in the meta-analysis. More implants with rough surfaces were affected by perimplantitis (RR 0.80; 95% CI 0.67 to 0.96) meaning that turned implant surfaces had a 20% reduction in risk of being affected by perimplantitis over a 3-year period.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on the available results of RCTs, there is limited evidence showing that implants with relatively smooth (turned) surfaces are less prone to lose bone due to chronic infection (perimplantitis) than implants with rougher surfaces. On the other hand, there is no evidence showing that any particular type of dental implant has superior long-term success. These findings are based on a few RCTs, often at high risk of bias, with few participants and relatively short follow-up periods. More RCTs should be conducted, with follow up of at least 5 years including a sufficient number of patients to detect a true difference. Such trials should be reported according to the CONSORT recommendations (http://www.consort-statement.org/).

Paracetamol for pain relief after surgical removal of lower wisdom teeth

BACKGROUND

Paracetamol has been commonly used for the relief of postoperative pain following oral surgery. In this review we investigated the optimal dose of paracetamol and the optimal time for drug administration to provide pain relief, taking into account the side effects of different doses of the drug. This will inform dentists and their patients of the best strategy for pain relief after the surgical removal of wisdom teeth.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of paracetamol for pain relief after surgical removal of lower wisdom teeth, compared to placebo, at different doses and administered postoperatively.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register; the Cochrane Pain, Palliative and Supportive Care Group's Trials Register; CENTRAL; MEDLINE; EMBASE and the Current Controlled Trials Register. Handsearching included several dental journals. We checked the bibliographies of relevant clinical trials and review articles for studies outside the handsearched journals. We wrote to authors of the identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs), to manufacturers of analgesic pharmaceuticals, we searched personal references in an attempt to identify unpublished or ongoing RCTs. No language restriction was applied. The last electronic search was conducted on 24th August 2006.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised, parallel group, placebo controlled, double blind clinical trials of paracetamol for acute pain, following third molar surgery.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

All trials identified were scanned independently and in duplicate by two review authors, any disagreements were resolved by discussion, or if necessary a third review author was consulted. The proportion of patients with at least 50% pain relief was calculated for both paracetamol and placebo. The number of patients experiencing adverse events, and/or the total number of adverse events reported were analysed.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-one trials met the inclusion criteria. A total of 2048 patients were initially enrolled in the trials (1148 received paracetamol, and 892 the placebo) and of these 1968 (96%) were included in the meta-analysis (1133 received paracetamol, and 835 the placebo). Paracetamol provided a statistically significant benefit when compared with placebo for pain relief and pain intensity at both 4 and 6 hours. Most studies were found to have moderate risk of bias, with poorly reported allocation concealment being the main problem. Risk ratio values for pain relief at 4 hours 2.85 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.89 to 4.29), and at 6 hours 3.32 (95% CI 1.88 to 5.87). A statistically significant benefit was also found between up to 1000 mg and 1000 mg doses, the higher the dose giving greater benefit for each measure at both time points. There was no statistically significant difference between the number of patients who reported adverse events, overall this being 19% in the paracetamol group and 16% in the placebo group.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Paracetamol is a safe, effective drug for the treatment of postoperative pain following the surgical removal of lower wisdom teeth.

Interventions for replacing missing teeth: management of soft tissues for dental implants

BACKGROUND

Dental implants are usually placed by elevating a soft tissue flap, but in some instances, they can also be placed flapless reducing patient discomfort. Several flap and suturing techniques have been proposed. Soft tissues are often manipulated and augmented for aesthetic reasons. It is often recommended that implants are surrounded by a sufficient width of attached/keratinized mucosa to improve their long-term prognosis.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate whether (1a) flapless procedures are beneficial for patients, and (1b) which is the ideal flap design; whether (2a) soft tissue correction/augmentation techniques are beneficial for patients, and (2b) which are the best techniques; whether (3a) techniques to increase the perimplant keratinized mucosa are beneficial for patients, and (3b) which are the best techniques; and (4) which are the best suturing techniques/materials.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched. Handsearching included several dental journals. Authors of all identified trials, an internet discussion group and 55 dental implant manufacturers were contacted to find unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs). The last electronic search was conducted on 15 January 2007.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All RCTs of root-form osseointegrated dental implants comparing various techniques to handle soft tissues in relation to dental implants. Outcome measures were: prosthetic and implant failures, aesthetics evaluated by patients and dentists, biological complications, postoperative pain, patient preference, ease of maintenance by patient, and width of the attached/keratinized mucosa.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Screening of eligible studies, assessment of the methodological quality of the trials and data extraction were conducted in duplicate and independently by two review authors. Authors were contacted for missing information. Results were expressed as random-effects models using mean differences for continuous outcomes and risk ratios for dichotomous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Heterogeneity was to be investigated including both clinical and methodological factors.

MAIN RESULTS

Eight potentially eligible RCTs were identified and five trials including 140 patients in total were included. Two trials (100 patients) compared flapless placement of dental implants with conventional flap elevation, two trials (20 patients) crestal versus vestibular incisions, and one trial (20 patients) Erbium:YAG laser versus flap elevation at the second-stage surgery for implant exposure. On a patient, rather than per implant basis, implants placed with a flapless technique and implant exposures performed with laser induced statistically significant less postoperative pain than flap elevation. There were no other statistically significant differences for any of the remaining analyses.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Flapless implant placement is feasible and has been shown to reduce patient postoperative discomfort in adequately selected patients. There is insufficient reliable evidence to provide recommendations on which are the best incision/suture techniques/materials, or whether techniques to correct/augment perimplant soft tissues or to increase the width of keratinized/attached mucosa are beneficial to patients or not. Properly designed and conducted RCTs are needed to provide reliable answers to these questions.

Interventions for replacing missing teeth: 1- versus 2-stage implant placement

BACKGROUND

Implants may be placed penetrating the oral mucosa (1-stage procedure) or can be completely buried under the oral mucosa (2-stage procedure) during the healing phase of the bone at the implant surface. With a 2-stage procedure the risk of having unwanted loading onto the implants is minimized, but a second minor surgical intervention is needed to connect the healing abutments and more time is needed prior to start the prosthetic phase because of the wound-healing period required in relation to the second surgical intervention.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate whether a 1-stage implant placement procedure is as effective as a 2-stage procedure.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched. Handsearching included several dental journals. Authors of all identified trials, an internet discussion group and 55 dental implant manufacturers were contacted to find unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs). The last electronic search was conducted on 15 January 2007.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All RCTs of root-form osseointegrated dental implants comparing the same 2-piece osseointegrated root-form dental implants placed according to 1- versus 2-stage procedures with a minimum follow up of 6 months after loading. Outcome measures were: prosthesis failures, implant failures, marginal bone level changes on intraoral radiographs, patient preference including aesthetics, aesthetics evaluated by dentists, and complications.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Screening of eligible studies, assessment of the methodological quality of the trials and data extraction were conducted in duplicate and independently by two review authors. Authors were contacted for missing information. Results were expressed as random-effects models using mean differences for continuous outcomes and risk ratios for dichotomous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Heterogeneity was to be investigated including both clinical and methodological factors.

MAIN RESULTS

Three RCTs were identified and two trials including 45 patients in total were included. On a patient, rather than per implant basis, there were no statistically significant differences.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The number of patients included in the trials was too small to draw reliable conclusions, however it appears that the two procedures did not show clinical significant differences. If these preliminary results will be confirmed by more robust trials, a 1-stage procedure might be preferable since it avoids one minor surgical intervention and shortens the waiting time to provide the final restoration. There might be specific situations though, such as when optimal implant stability is not obtained at placement or when barriers are used in conjunction with implants, in which a 2-stage approach might be preferable.

Changes in the levels of knowledge and attitudes of dental hospital staff about domestic violence following attendance at an awareness raising seminar

OBJECTIVES

To assess changes in dental team knowledge and awareness about domestic violence following attendance at a brief training intervention.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Seventy-five dental hospital staff at the University of Manchester Dental Hospital attended a two-hour session delivered by Manchester's City Wide NHS Domestic Violence Project manager. Participants completed identical questionnaires immediately before and after the session. Paired t-tests were conducted to determine changes in responses to individual questions before and after training. Independent sample t-tests were also conducted to compare mean responses by sex.

RESULTS

Statistically significant improvements were seen in 50% of attitude questions and 100% of knowledge questions. After training, there was improved recognition that interpersonal violence was a health issue and that the dental profession should be more involved in identification of abuse. There was also improved comfort asking about abuse and respondents were less afraid of offending the patient and less likely to blame the victims for being abused. Statistically significant sex differences at baseline were also seen for several items: females obtaining more correct answers at baseline than males.

CONCLUSIONS

Brief domestic violence training interventions can be effective in improving knowledge and attitudes amongst a dental team but could lead to false confidence in staff and should be followed by in-depth practical training and the development of appropriate processes for dealing with abuse victims.

Interventions for replacing missing teeth: different times for loading dental implants

BACKGROUND

To minimize the risk of implant failure, osseointegrated dental implants are conventionally kept load-free during the healing period. During healing removable prostheses are used, however many patients find these temporary prostheses rather uncomfortable and it would be beneficial if the healing period could be shortened without jeopardizing implant success. Nowadays immediately and early loaded implants are commonly used in mandibles (lower jaws) of good bone quality. It would be useful to know whether there is a difference in success rates between immediately or early loaded implants compared with conventionally loaded implants.

OBJECTIVES

To test the null hypothesis of no difference in the clinical performance between osseointegrated implants loaded at different times 6 months to 1 year after loading.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched. Handsearching included several dental journals. Authors of all identified trials, an internet discussion group and 55 dental implant manufacturers were contacted to find unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs). The last electronic search was conducted on 7 August 2006.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All RCTs of root-form osseointegrated oral implants having a follow up of 6 months to 1 year comparing the same osseointegrated root-form oral implants immediately (within 1 week); early (between 1 week to 2 months); and conventionally loaded (after 2 months). Outcome measures were: prosthesis failures, implant failures and marginal bone levels on intraoral radiographs.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data were independently extracted, in duplicate, by two review authors. Authors were contacted for details of randomisation and withdrawals and a quality assessment was carried out. The Cochrane Oral Health Group's statistical guidelines were followed.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty RCTs were identified and 11 trials including 300 patients in total were included. Six trials compared immediate versus conventional loading, three early versus conventional loading and two immediate versus early loading. On a patient, rather than per implant basis, there were no statistically significant differences for any of the meta-analyses.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

It is possible to successfully load dental implants immediately or early after their placement in selected patients, though not all clinicians may achieve optimal results when loading the implant immediately. A high degree of primary implant stability (high value of insertion torque) seems to be one of the prerequisites for a successful immediate/early loading procedure. More well designed RCTs are needed. Priority should be given to trials comparing immediately versus early loaded implants to improve patient satisfaction and decrease treatment time. These trials should be reported according to the CONSORT guidelines (http://www.consort-statement.org/).

Interventions for replacing missing teeth: dental implants in fresh extraction sockets (immediate, immediate-delayed and delayed implants)

BACKGROUND

Dental implants can be placed in fresh sockets just after tooth extraction. These are called 'immediate' implants. 'Immediate-delayed' implants are those implants inserted after weeks up to about a couple of months to allow for soft tissue healing. 'Delayed' implants are those placed thereafter in partially or completely healed bone. The advantages of immediate implants are that treatment time can be shortened and that bone height might be maintained thus possibly improving the aesthetic results. The potential disadvantages are an increased risk of infection and failures of the immediately placed implants.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate success, function, complications and patient satisfaction between 'immediate', 'immediate-delayed' and 'delayed' implants.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched. Several dental journals were handsearched. The bibliographies of review articles were checked, and personal references were searched. More than 55 implant manufacturing companies were also contacted. Last electronic search was conducted on 7 August 2006.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and preference RCT evaluating immediate, immediate-delayed, and delayed implants, reporting the outcome of the interventions to at least 1 year after functional loading.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Screening of eligible studies, assessment of the methodological quality of the trials and data extraction were conducted independently and in duplicate. Authors were contacted for any missing information. Results were expressed as random-effects models using mean differences for continuous outcomes and risk ratios for dichotomous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). The statistical unit of the analysis was the patient.

MAIN RESULTS

Two RCTs were included. One RCT compared immediate implants placed in periapical infected sites versus delayed implants in 50 patients and after 1 year found no statistically significant differences. The second RCT compared immediate-delayed versus immediate implants in 46 patients. After 1 year and a half there were no statistically significant differences for prosthesis and implant failures, complications, aesthetics assessed by the patient and the papilla height assessed by the dentist. However, patients in the delayed group perceiving the period between tooth extraction and insertion of the crown significantly longer than patients in the immediate-delayed group, mean difference of VAS -20.30 (95% CI -33.36 to -7.24). There was also statistically significantly higher patient satisfaction in the immediate-delayed group, mean difference (VAS) -6.51 (95% CI -12.63 to -0.39). An independent blinded assessor judged the level of the perimplant marginal mucosa in relation to that of the adjacent teeth as more appropriate in the immediate-delayed group, with risk ratio (RR) 1.68 (95% CI 1.04 to 2.72).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Despite that the evidence is derived from only two RCTs with a limited number of patients, it is possible to suggest that immediate implants and immediate-delayed implants may offer some advantages over conventional implants in healed sites in terms of patient satisfaction and aesthetics possibly by preserving alveolar bone. Immediate implants can work and are able to shorten treatment periods, however properly designed RCTs are still needed to fully evaluate the potential advantages and risks of this treatment modality since more complications and failures may occur.

Interventions for replacing missing teeth: treatment of perimplantitis

BACKGROUND

One of the key factors for the long-term success of oral implants is the maintenance of healthy tissues around them. Bacterial plaque accumulation induces inflammatory changes in the soft tissues surrounding oral implants and it may lead to their progressive destruction (perimplantitis) and ultimately to implant failure. Different treatment strategies for perimplantitis have been suggested, however it is unclear which are the most effective.

OBJECTIVES

To identify the most effective interventions for treating perimplantitis around osseointegrated dental implants.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and EMBASE. Handsearching included several dental journals. We checked the bibliographies of the identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and relevant review articles for studies outside the handsearched journals. We wrote to authors of all identified RCTs, to more than 55 oral implant manufacturers and an Internet discussion group to find unpublished or ongoing RCTs. No language restrictions were applied. The last electronic search was conducted on 15 March 2006.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All RCTs of oral implants comparing agents or interventions for treating perimplantitis around dental implants.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Screening of eligible studies, assessment of the methodological quality of the trials and data extraction were conducted in duplicate and independently by two review authors. We contacted the authors for missing information. Results were expressed as random-effects models using weighted mean differences for continuous outcomes and risk ratios for dichotomous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Heterogeneity was to be investigated including both clinical and methodological factors.

MAIN RESULTS

Seven eligible trials were identified, but two were excluded. The following procedures were tested: 1) use of local antibiotics versus ultrasonic debridement; 2) benefits of adjunctive local antibiotics to debridement; 3) different techniques of subgingival debridement; 4) laser versus manual debridement and chlorhexidine irrigation/gel; 5) systemic antibiotics plus resective surgery plus two different local antibiotics with and without implant surface smoothening. Follow up ranged from 3 months to 2 years. No meta-analysis was conducted due to different interventions tested and outcomes used. No side effects occurred in any of the trials. The only significant statistically differences were observed in a 4-month follow-up RCT evaluating the use of adjunctive local antibiotics to manual debridement in patients having lost at least 50% of the supporting bone around the implants. There were improved probing attachment levels (PAL) mean differences of 0.61 mm (95% CI 0.40 to 0.82), and reduced probing pockets depths (PPD) mean differences of 0.59 mm (95% CI 0.39 to 0.79) in those patients receiving adjunctive local antibiotics. This trial was judged to be at high risk of bias.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no reliable evidence suggesting which could be the most effective interventions for treating perimplantitis. This is not to say that currently used interventions are not effective. However, the use of local antibiotics in addition to manual subgingival debridement was associated with a 0.6 mm additional improvement for PAL and PPD over a 4-month period in patients associated with severe forms of perimplantitis. In three trials, the control therapy which basically consisted of a simple subgingival mechanical debridement seemed to be sufficient to achieve results similar to the more complex and expensive therapies. Smoothening of rough implant surfaces was not associated with statistically significant improvements of the clinical outcomes. However, sample sizes were small, therefore these conclusions have to be considered with great caution. More well-designed RCTs are needed.

Arteriovenous malformation of the mandible — A case report

Both arteriovenous malformations (AVMs) and solitary bone cysts of the mandible are uncommon lesions. The latter can be considered fairly innocuous but AVMs require careful management. The following is a description of a case where an arteriovenous malformation of the mandible presented with mental nerve paraesthesia. However, radiographically the features appeared to be consistent with a solitary bone cyst. It is important for clinicians in both a primary and secondary care setting to be aware that this type of lesion can have life threatening complications.

Interventions for replacing missing teeth: bone augmentation techniques for dental implant treatment

BACKGROUND

Dental implants require sufficient bone to be adequately stabilised. For some patients implant treatment would not be an option without bone augmentation. A variety of materials and surgical techniques are available for bone augmentation.

OBJECTIVES

General objectives: To test the null hypothesis of no difference in the success, function, morbidity and patient satisfaction between different bone augmentation techniques for dental implant treatment.

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES

(A) to test whether and when augmentation procedures are necessary; (B) to test which is the most effective augmentation technique for specific clinical indications. Trials were divided into three broad categories according to different indications for the bone augmentation techniques: (1) major vertical or horizontal bone augmentation or both; (2) implants placed in extraction sockets; (3) fenestrated implants.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched. Several dental journals were handsearched. The bibliographies of review articles were checked, and personal references were searched. More than 55 implant manufacturing companies were also contacted. Last electronic search was conducted on 1 October 2005.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of different techniques and materials for augmenting bone for implant treatment reporting the outcome of implant therapy at least to abutment connection.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Screening of eligible studies, assessment of the methodological quality of the trials and data extraction were conducted independently and in duplicate. Authors were contacted for any missing information. Results were expressed as random-effects models using weighted mean differences for continuous outcomes and odd ratios for dichotomous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals. The statistical unit of the analysis was the patient.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirteen RCTs out of 29 potentially eligible trials reporting the outcome of 330 patients were suitable for inclusion. Since different techniques were evaluated in different trials, no meta-analysis could be performed. Six trials evaluated different techniques for vertical or horizontal bone augmentation or both. Four trials evaluated different techniques of bone grafting for implants placed in extraction sockets and three trials evaluated different techniques to treat bone dehiscence or fenestrations around implants.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Major bone grafting procedures of extremely resorbed mandibles may not be justified. Bone substitutes (Bio-Oss or Cerasorb) may replace autogenous bone for sinus lift procedures of extremely atrophic sinuses. Both guided bone regeneration (GBR) procedures and distraction osteogenesis can augment bone vertically, but it is unclear which is the most efficient technique. It is unclear whether augmentation procedures at immediate single implants placed in fresh extraction sockets are needed, and which is the most effective augmentation procedure, however, sites treated with barrier + Bio-Oss showed a higher position of the gingival margin, when compared to sites treated with barriers alone. Non-resorbable barriers at fenestrated implants regenerated more bone than no barriers, however it remains unclear whether such bone is of benefit to the patient. It is unclear which is the most effective technique for augmenting bone around fenestrated implants. No bone promoting molecule has been shown to be effective or necessary in conjunction with dental implant treatment. The use of particulated autogenous bone from intraoral locations, also taken with dedicated aspirators, might be associated with an increased risk of infective complications. These findings are based on few trials including few patients, having sometimes short follow up, and being often judged to be at high risk of bias.

Enamel matrix derivative (Emdogain) for periodontal tissue regeneration in intrabony defects

BACKGROUND

Periodontitis is a chronic infective disease of the gums caused by bacteria present in dental plaque. This condition induces the breakdown of the tooth supporting apparatus until teeth are lost. Surgery may be indicated to arrest disease progression and regenerate lost tissues. Several surgical techniques have been developed to regenerate periodontal tissues including guided tissue regeneration (GTR), bone grafting (BG) and the use of enamel matrix derivative (EMD). EMD is an extract of enamel matrix and contains amelogenins of various molecular weights. Amelogenins are involved in the formation of enamel and periodontal attachment formation during tooth development.

OBJECTIVES

To test whether EMD is effective, and to compare EMD versus GTR, and various BG procedures for the treatment of intrabony defects.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane OHG Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE and EMBASE. Several journals were handsearched. No language restrictions were applied. Authors of RCTs identified, personal contacts and the manufacturer were contacted to identify unpublished trials. Most recent search: May 2005.

SELECTION CRITERIA

RCTs on patients affected by periodontitis having intrabony defects of at least 3 mm treated with EMD compared with open flap debridement, GTR and various BG procedures with at least 1 year follow up. The outcome measures considered were: tooth loss, changes in probing attachment levels (PAL), pocket depths (PPD), gingival recessions (REC), bone levels from the bottom of the defects on intraoral radiographs, aesthetics and adverse events. The following time-points were to be evaluated: 1, 5 and 10 years.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Screening of eligible studies, assessment of the methodological quality of the trials and data extraction were conducted in duplicate and independently by two authors. Results were expressed as random-effects models using mean differences for continuous outcomes and risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals (CI). It was decided not to investigate heterogeneity, but a sensitivity analysis for the risk of bias of the trials was performed.

MAIN RESULTS

Ten trials were included out of 29 potentially eligible trials. No included trial presented data after 5 years of follow up, therefore all data refer to the 1-year time point. A meta-analysis including eight trials showed that EMD treated sites displayed statistically significant PAL improvements (mean difference 1.2 mm, 95% CI 0.7 to 1.7) and PPD reduction (0.8 mm, 95% CI 0.5 to 1.0) when compared to placebo or control treated sites, though a high degree of heterogeneity was found. Significantly more sites had < 2 mm PAL gain in the control group, with RR 0.48 (95% CI 0.29 to 0.80). Approximately six patients needed to be treated (NNT) to have one patient gaining 2 mm or more PAL over the control group, based on a prevalence in the control group of 35%. No differences in tooth loss or aesthetic appearance as judged by the patients were observed. When evaluating the only two trials at a low risk of bias in a sensitivity analysis, the effect size for PAL was 0.6 mm, which was less than 1.2 mm for the overall result. Comparing EMD with GTR (five trials), GTR showed a statistically significant increase of REC (0.4 mm) and significantly more postoperative complications. No trials were found comparing EMD with BG.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

One year after its application, EMD significantly improved PAL levels (1.2 mm) and PPD reduction (0.8 mm) when compared to a placebo or control, however, the high degree of heterogeneity observed among trials suggests that results have to be interpreted with great caution. In addition a sensitivity analyses indicated that the overall treatment effect might be overestimated. The actual clinical advantages of using EMD are unknown. With the exception of significantly more postoperative complications in the GTR group, there was no evidence of clinically important differences between GTR and EMD.

Interventions for replacing missing teeth: dental implants in zygomatic bone for the rehabilitation of the severely deficient edentulous maxilla

BACKGROUND

Dental implants are used for replacing missing teeth. Placing dental implants is limited by the presence of adequate bone volume permitting their anchorage. Several bone augmentation procedures have been developed to solve this problem. Zygomatic implants are long screw-shaped implants developed as a partial or complete alternative to bone augmentation procedures for the severely atrophic maxilla. One to three zygomatic implants can be inserted through the posterior alveolar crest and maxillary sinus to engage the body of the zygomatic bone. A couple of conventional dental implants are also needed in the frontal region of the maxilla to stabilize the prosthesis. The potential main advantages of zygomatic implants could be that in some situations bone grafting may not be needed and a fixed denture could be fitted sooner. Another specific indication for using zygomatic implants could be the need of maxillary reconstruction after maxillectomy in cancer patients.

OBJECTIVES

To test the hypothesis of no difference in outcomes between zygomatic implants with and without bone augmenting procedures in comparison with conventional dental implants in augmented bone for severely resorbed maxillae.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trial Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and EMBASE. We handsearched several dental journals. No language restrictions were applied. Personal contacts and all known zygomatic implant manufacturers were contacted to identify unpublished trials. Most recent search: May 2005.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled clinical trials (RCTs) including patients with severely resorbed maxillae who could not be rehabilitated with conventional dental implants, treated with zygomatic implants with and without bone grafts versus patients treated with conventional dental implants in conjunction with bone augmentation procedures having a follow up of at least 1 year. Outcome measures considered were: prosthesis and implant failures, side effects, patient satisfaction and cost effectiveness.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Screening of eligible studies, assessment of the methodological quality of trials and data extraction were to be conducted in duplicate and independently by two authors. Results were to be expressed as random-effects models using weighted mean differences for continuous outcomes and risk ratio for dichotomous outcomes with 95% confidence interval. Heterogeneity was to be investigated including both clinical and methodological factors.

MAIN RESULTS

No RCTs or controlled clinical trials (CCTs) were identified.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is the need for RCTs in this area to assess whether zygomatic implants offer some advantages over alternative bone augmentation techniques for treating atrophic maxillae.

Interventions for replacing missing teeth: different types of dental implants

BACKGROUND

Dental implants are available in different materials, shapes and with different surface characteristics. In particular, numerous implant surface modifications have been developed for enhancing clinical performances.

OBJECTIVES

To test the null hypothesis of no difference in clinical performance between various root-formed osseointegrated dental implant types.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and EMBASE. Handsearching included several dental journals. We checked the bibliographies of relevant clinical trials and review articles for studies outside the handsearched journals. We wrote to authors of the identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs), to more than 55 oral implant manufacturers; we used personal contacts and we asked on an internet discussion group in an attempt to identify unpublished or ongoing RCTs. No language restriction was applied. The last electronic search was conducted on 28 June 2004.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All RCTs of oral implants comparing osseointegrated implants with different materials, shapes and surface properties having a follow up of at least 1 year.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Screening of eligible studies, assessment of the methodological quality of the trials and data extraction were conducted in duplicate and independently by two reviewers. Results were expressed as random effects models using weighted mean differences for continuous outcomes and relative risk for dichotomous outcomes with 95% confidence intervals.

MAIN RESULTS

Thirty-one different RCTs were identified. Twelve of these RCTs, reporting results from a total of 512 patients, were suitable for inclusion in the review. Twelve different implant types were compared with a follow up ranging from 1 to 5 years. All implants were made in commercially pure titanium and had different shapes and surface preparations. On a 'per patient ' rather than 'per implant' basis no significant differences were observed between various implant types for implant failures. There were statistically significant differences for peri-implant bone level changes on intraoral radiographs in three comparisons in two trials. In one trial there was more bone loss only at 1 year for IMZ implants compared to Branemark (mean difference 0.60 mm; 95% CI 0.01 to 1.10) and to ITI implants (mean difference 0.50 mm; 95% CI 0.01 to 0.99). In the other trial Southern implants displayed more bone loss at 5 years than Steri-Oss implants (mean difference -0.35 mm; 95% CI -0.70 to -0.01). However this difference disappeared in the meta-analysis. More implants with rough surfaces were affected by perimplantitis (RR 0.80; 95% CI 0.67 to 0.96) meaning that turned implant surfaces had a 20% reduction in risk of being affected by perimplantitis over a 3-year period.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on the available results of RCTs, there is limited evidence showing that implants with relatively smooth (turned) surfaces are less prone to loose bone due to chronic infection (perimplantitis) than implants with rougher surfaces. On the other hand, there is no evidence showing that any particular type of dental implant has superior long-term success. These findings are based on a few RCTs, often at high risk of bias, with few participants and relatively short follow-up periods. More RCTs should be conducted, with follow up of at least 5 years including a sufficient number of patients to detect a true difference if any exists. Such trials should be reported according to the CONSORT recommendations (http://www.consort-statement.org/).

Interventions for replacing missing teeth: treatment of perimplantitis

BACKGROUND

One of the key factors for the long-term success of oral implants is the maintenance of healthy tissues around them. Bacterial plaque accumulation induces inflammatory changes in the soft tissues surrounding oral implants and it may lead to their progressive destruction (perimplantitis) and ultimately to implant failure. Different treatment strategies for perimplantitis have been suggested, however it is unclear which are the most effective.

OBJECTIVES

To identify the most effective interventions for treating perimplantitis around osseointegrated dental implants.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and EMBASE. Handsearching included several dental journals. We checked the bibliographies of the identified randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and relevant review articles for studies outside the handsearched journals. We wrote to authors of all identified RCTs, to more than 55 oral implant manufacturers and an internet discussion group to find unpublished or ongoing RCTs. No language restrictions were applied. The last electronic search was conducted on 28 June 2004.

SELECTION CRITERIA

All RCTs of oral implants comparing agents or interventions for treating perimplantitis around dental implants.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Screening of eligible studies, assessment of the methodological quality of the trials and data extraction were conducted in duplicate and independently by two reviewers. We contacted the authors for missing information. Results were expressed as random effect models using weighted mean differences for continuous outcomes and relative risk for dichotomous outcomes with 95% confidence interval (CI). Heterogeneity was to be investigated including both clinical and methodological factors.

MAIN RESULTS

Only two eligible trials were identified, but one was excluded due to insufficient data presented. The included study compared the use of locally applied metronidazole gel versus ultrasonic debridement in patients affected possibly by a slight form of perimplantitis. Both interventions were repeated 1 week after. Twelve weeks after treatment there was no statistically significant difference in probing pocket depths among the two groups (mean difference = 0.1; 95% CI -0.59 to 0.79). No side effects occurred. This trial was judged to be at high risk of bias.

REVIEWERS' CONCLUSIONS

There is no reliable evidence suggesting which could be the most effective interventions for treating perimplantitis. This is not to say that currently used interventions are not effective. More quality research is needed.