Clinical efficacy of guided bone regeneration in peri‐implantitis defects. A network meta‐analysis

Ausra Ramanauskaite; Kathrin Becker; Emilio A. Cafferata; Frank Schwarz

doi:10.1111/prd.12510

journal article Open Access Jul 25, 2023

Clinical efficacy of guided bone regeneration in peri‐implantitis defects. A network meta‐analysis

Ausra Ramanauskaite

Kathrin Becker

Emilio A. Cafferata

Frank Schwarz

Periodontology 2000 Vol. 93 No. 1 pp. 236-253 · Wiley

View at Publisher Save 10.1111/prd.12510

Abstract

AbstractGuided bone regeneration (GBR) at peri‐implantitis‐related bone defects involves the placement of bone‐filler particles in the intrabony defects and the application of a barrier membrane. The efficacy of different GBR‐supported reconstructive measures as well as their potential superiority compared to non‐GBR‐supported treatment strategies for bone defects at peri‐implantitis sites, however, remains unclear. Therefore, this analysis was designed to evaluate the long‐term (≥12 months) clinical efficacy of GBR‐supported reconstructive surgical therapy for peri‐implantitis‐related bone defects. In terms of resolving inflammation, the implementation of GBR protocols applying xenogenic bone substitutes yielded a higher reduction of bleeding on probing and probing depth value compared to the GBR protocol applying autogenous bone. Furthermore, for the changes in bleeding on probing and probing depths, GBR approaches using xenogenic bone showed superiority over the non‐GBR treatments. Xenogenic bone with or without a barrier membrane was associated with improved radiographic bone levels and less soft tissue recession compared to the use of a GBR protocol implementing autogenous bone. Nonetheless, when interpreting this findings, the limited number of available studies with low to serious risk of bias and the short follow‐up periods limited to 12 months should be considered.

Topics

No keywords indexed for this article. Browse by subject →

References

43

[1]

10.1111/jcpe.12957

[2]

10.1002/jper.16-0350

[3]

10.1111/j.1600-0501.2005.01137.x

[4]

10.1111/jcpe.12535

[5]

10.1111/j.1600-051x.2011.01837.x

[6]

10.1186/s40729-015-0023-1

[7]

10.1186/s40729-021-00388-x

[8]

10.1111/prd.12417

[9]

10.1111/jcpe.13121

[10]

10.1111/jcpe.13775

[11]

10.1097/id.0000000000000839

[12]

Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement

David Moher, Alessandro Liberati, Jennifer Tetzlaff et al.

PLoS Medicine 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097

[13]

RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials

Jonathan A C Sterne, Jelena Savović, Matthew J Page et al.

BMJ 10.1136/bmj.l4898

[14]

10.1136/bmj.i4919

[15]

RückerGKU KönigJ EfthimiouO DaviesA PapakonstantinouT SchwarzerG.Network meta‐analysis using frequentist methods. R package version 2.5‐0.2022.https://CRANR‐projectorg/package=netmeta

[16]

10.1111/idj.12505

[17]

Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses

Julian P T Higgins, Simon G Thompson, Jonathan J Deeks et al.

BMJ 10.1136/bmj.327.7414.557

[18]

10.1002/jper.22-0511

[19]

The adjunctive effect of a resorbable membrane to a xenogeneic bone replacement graft in the reconstructive surgical therapy of peri‐implantitis: A randomized clinical trial

Erik Regidor, Alberto Ortiz‐Vigón, Mario Romandini et al.

Journal of Clinical Periodontology 10.1111/jcpe.13796

[20]

Efficacy of concentrated growth factor versus collagen membrane in reconstructive surgical therapy of peri-implantitis: 3-year results of a randomized clinical trial

Sila Cagri Isler, Fatma Soysal, Tugce Ceyhanlı et al.

Clinical Oral Investigations 10.1007/s00784-022-04493-y

[21]

10.1111/j.1600-051x.2009.01443.x

[22]

10.1111/jcpe.12308

[23]

10.1111/clr.13994

[24]

10.1111/cid.12791

[25]

10.1111/jcpe.13513

[26]

Nkenke E "Autogenous bone harvesting and grafting in advanced jaw resorption: morbidity, resorption and implant survival" Eur J Oral Implantol (2014)

[27]

10.1111/jcpe.13052

[28]

10.1007/s00784-020-03537-5

[29]

10.1186/s40729-020-00219-5

[30]

10.1111/j.1600-051x.2010.01540.x

[31]

10.1111/clr.13766

[32]

10.1111/jcpe.13250

[33]

10.1002/jper.21-0418

[34]

10.1111/j.1600-051x.2010.01606.x

[35]

10.1111/clr.13028

[36]

10.1111/clr.13138

[37]

10.1111/clr.13653

[38]

10.1111/cid.12661

[39]

10.1111/j.1600-051x.2012.01880.x

[40]

10.1111/j.1600-051x.2007.01102.x

[41]

10.1111/j.1600-051x.2011.01729.x

[42]

10.1111/j.1600-051x.2006.00936.x

[43]

10.1111/j.1600-051x.2007.01168.x

Metrics

24

Citations

43

References

Details

Published: Jul 25, 2023
Vol/Issue: 93(1)
Pages: 236-253
License: View

Authors

A

Ausra Ramanauskaite

Department of Oral Surgery and Implantology Goethe University, Carolinum Frankfurt Germany

K

Kathrin Becker

Department of Orthodontics Universitätsklinikum Düsseldorf Düsseldorf Germany

E

Emilio A. Cafferata

Department of Oral Surgery and Implantology Goethe University, Carolinum Frankfurt Germany; Department of Periodontology, School of Dentistry Universidad Científica del Sur Lima Peru

F

Frank Schwarz

Department of Oral Surgery and Implantology Goethe University, Carolinum Frankfurt Germany

Cite This Article

Ausra Ramanauskaite, Kathrin Becker, Emilio A. Cafferata, et al. (2023). Clinical efficacy of guided bone regeneration in peri‐implantitis defects. A network meta‐analysis. Periodontology 2000, 93(1), 236-253. https://doi.org/10.1111/prd.12510

Clinical efficacy of guided bone regeneration in peri‐implantitis defects. A network meta‐analysis

You May Also Like