Effect of photodynamic and laser therapy in the treatment of peri-implant mucositis: A systematic review

•Effect of photodynamic therapy (PDT) or laser therapy (LT) in peri-implant mucositis (p-iM) was investigated.•Five studies included in the qualitative analysis.•Three studies used PDT while two studies used LT.•This study showed inconclusive findings regarding PDT or LT use in the treatment of p-iM...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Photodiagnosis and photodynamic therapy 2018-03, Vol.21, p.147-152
Hauptverfasser: Albaker, Abdulaziz M., ArRejaie, Aws S., Alrabiah, Mohammed, Abduljabbar, Tariq
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:•Effect of photodynamic therapy (PDT) or laser therapy (LT) in peri-implant mucositis (p-iM) was investigated.•Five studies included in the qualitative analysis.•Three studies used PDT while two studies used LT.•This study showed inconclusive findings regarding PDT or LT use in the treatment of p-iM. The present study systematically reviewed the literature to investigate the effect of photodynamic therapy (PDT) or laser therapy (LT) in the management of peri-implant mucositis (p-iM). The electronic databases were searched until October 2017. Outcome measures were bleeding on probing (BOP), plaque index (PI), or probing depth (PD). The addressed PICO question was: “Is PDT and LT effective in the management of p-iM?” A total of five studies included in the qualitative analysis, two of which had a low risk of bias. Three studies used PDT while two studies used LT. All studies reported a significant improvement in clinical peri-implant inflammatory parameters in p-iM. For PDT, one study demonstrated a significant reduction for PDT group as compared to manual debridement (MD), while one study indicated comparable outcomes when tested with probiotics at follow-up. One study used PDT alone and indicated significant improvements in peri-implant parameters at follow-up. However, in the studies using LT, one study demonstrated a significant improvement in peri-implant parameters as compared to scaling and root planing alone, while other study indicated comparable outcomes when compared with manual debridement/chlorhexidine group at follow-up. This systematic review demonstrated inconclusive findings to show the effect of PDT or LT in the management of p-iM due to methodological heterogeneity such as non-standard control groups, laser parameters and short follow-up period. The results of this review should be considered preliminary and further, more robust, well-designed studies with long-term follow up and standardized comparators with laser parameters are warranted.
ISSN:1572-1000
1873-1597
DOI:10.1016/j.pdpdt.2017.11.011