Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To answer the following PICO question: "In patients requiring surgical treatment of peri-implantitis (P), is any implant surface decontamination protocol (I) superior to others (C) in terms of clinical and radiographic parameters (O)?" METHODS: Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing two or more decontamination protocols as part of the surgical treatment of peri-implantitis were included. Two authors independently searched for eligible studies, screened titles and abstracts, did full-text analysis, extracted data, and performed the risk-of-bias assessment. Whenever possible, results were summarized through random effects meta-analyses. RESULTS: Twenty-two manuscripts reporting on 16 RCTs were included, testing mechanical, chemical and physical decontamination protocols. All of them resulted in an improvement in clinical parameters; however, the superiority of specific protocols over others is mainly based on single RCTs. The use of titanium brushes and implantoplasty showed favorable results as single decontamination methods. Meta-analyses indicated a lack of added effect of Er:Yag laser on probing pocket depth (PPD) reduction (n = 2, WMD = -0.24 mm, 95% confidence interval [CI] [-1.10; 0.63], p = .59); while systemic antimicrobials (amoxicillin or azithromycin) showed an added effect on treatment success ([PPD ≤5 mm, no bleeding or suppuration, no progressive bone loss]; n = 2, RR = 1.84, 95% CI [1.17;2.91], p = .008), but not in terms of PPD reduction (n = 2, WMD = 0.93 mm, 95% CI [-0.69; 2.55], p = .26), even if with substantial heterogeneity. CONCLUSIONS: No single decontamination method demonstrated clear evidence of superiority compared to the others. Systemic antibiotics, but not Er:Yag laser, may provide short-term clinical benefits in terms of treatment success (CRD42020182303).