Dataset Information

The Microbiome of Peri-Implantitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

ABSTRACT: This review aimed to systematically compare microbial profiles of peri-implantitis to those of periodontitis and healthy implants. Therefore, an electronic search in five databases was conducted. For inclusion, studies assessing the microbiome of peri-implantitis in otherwise healthy patients were considered. Literature was assessed for consistent evidence of exclusive or predominant peri-implantitis microbiota. Of 158 potentially eligible articles, data of 64 studies on 3730 samples from peri-implant sites were included in this study. Different assessment methods were described in the studies, namely bacterial culture, PCR-based assessment, hybridization techniques, pyrosequencing, and transcriptomic analyses. After analysis of 13 selected culture-dependent studies, no microbial species were found to be specific for peri-implantitis. After assessment of 28 studies using PCR-based methods and a meta-analysis on 19 studies, a higher prevalence of Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans and Prevotella intermedia (log-odds ratio 4.04 and 2.28, respectively) was detected in peri-implantitis biofilms compared with healthy implants. Actinomyces spp., Porphyromonas spp. and Rothia spp. were found in all five pyrosequencing studies in healthy-, periodontitis-, and peri-implantitis samples. In conclusion, the body of evidence does not show a consistent specific profile. Future studies should focus on the assessment of sites with different diagnosis for the same patient, and investigate the complex host-biofilm interaction.

SUBMITTER: Sahrmann P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7284896 | biostudies-literature | 2020 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The Microbiome of Peri-Implantitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Sahrmann Philipp P Gilli Fabienne F Wiedemeier Daniel B DB Attin Thomas T Schmidlin Patrick R PR Karygianni Lamprini L

Microorganisms 20200501 5

This review aimed to systematically compare microbial profiles of peri-implantitis to those of periodontitis and healthy implants. Therefore, an electronic search in five databases was conducted. For inclusion, studies assessing the microbiome of peri-implantitis in otherwise healthy patients were considered. Literature was assessed for consistent evidence of exclusive or predominant peri-implantitis microbiota. Of 158 potentially eligible articles, data of 64 studies on 3730 samples from peri-i ...[more]

PMID: 32369987

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesThe goal of this systematic review was to analyze, in randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs), regenerative techniques used to treat peri-implantitis (PI).MethodsThree databases (PubMed/Medline, EMBASE, and On-Line Knowledge Library) were accessed, applying the PICO strategy (Population [P], Intervention [I], Comparison [C], and Outcomes [O]), with the following focused questions: (i) "In patients who received regenerative treatments for peri-implantitis (P), is the regenerative surgical treatment (I) clinically effective and predictable compared to non-regenerative (C) to treat PI (O)?"; and (ii) "In patients who received regenerative treatments for peri-implantitis (P), the regenerative approach (I), compared to non-regenerative (C), significantly increase the prognosis and implant survival rate in the mid- and long-term (O)?" The inclusion criteria were RCTs published in English between 2012 and 2022, with at least a one-year follow-up, which applied regenerative techniques to treat peri-implantitis. Cochrane's collaboration tool for assessing the risk of bias was used.Main resultsNine articles were included with 404 patients (225 females and 179 males; mean age of 60.44 years). One study evaluated patients after 48 months and another after 88 months. The techniques and devices used were: (i) implantoplasty with Er:YAG laser, (ii) blood concentrate (growth factors), and (iii) EMD, with no statistically significant outcome. Two studies considered the use of titanium granules with a significant increase in radiographic bone identification, whereas regenerative techniques with bone graft (autogenous, alloplastic, and xenograft) were the majority chosen, associated or not, with a collagen membrane. Xenograft had better results radiographically when compared to the autogenous bone graft and presented better results for bone level. There was an overall decrease in bleeding on probing, independent of the control or test group, and a reduction in pocket depth in the groups analyzed. Titanium granules, EMD, Er:YAG laser, and CGF had non-significant results; better results were observed when using bone grafts. The RoB showed a low risk in four studies (44.44%), three with moderate (33.33%), and two with high risk (22.23%).ConclusionSurgical regenerative treatment was a predictable option in the management of PI and in improving the clinical parameters of peri-implant tissues in the short term, mainly when using porous titanium granules, alloplastic bone grafts, and xenografts.

Dataset Information

The Microbiome of Peri-Implantitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Publications

The Microbiome of Peri-Implantitis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets