The findings of this meta-analysis seem to support the effectiveness of SRP + AMX/MET; however, future studies are needed to confirm these results.

Strong evidence suggests that periodontitis is a risk factor for implant loss; moderate evidence revealed that periodontitis is a risk factor for peri-implantitis and that patients with periodontitis have higher implant-bone loss.

The findings of the meta-analysis seem to support the effectiveness and the clinical safety of FMSRP + AMX/MET; however, future studies are needed to confirm these results.

No abstract

The use of adjunctive aPDT to conventional SRP provides short-term benefits. The evidence to support its clinical medium/long-term efficacy is insufficient. Further high-quality RCTs are needed to investigate the influence of potential confounders on the efficacy of adjunctive aPDT.

This systematic review and meta-analysis assessed the efficacy of lasers in reducing dentin hypersensitivity (DH) as compared with placebo or no treatment. Seven electronic databases and a manual search resulted in 2,538 unique publications. After selection, 13 studies were included in the meta-analysis. A CONSORT-based quality assessment revealed that 3 and 10 studies were at low and high risk of bias, respectively. A random-effects model with the generic inverse variance standardized mean difference (SMD) was used because of expected heterogeneity. Meta-analyses of the baseline-end of follow-up changes in pain revealed no differences for Er,Cr:YSSG vs. placebo (SMD = 2.49; 95% CI, -0.25 to 5.22; p = .07) but did reveal differences in favor of lasers for Er:YAG vs. placebo (SMD, 2.65; 95% CI, 1.25 to 4.05; p = .0002), Nd:YAG vs. placebo (SMD, 3.59; 95% CI, 0.49 to 6.69; p = .02), and GaAlAs vs. placebo (SMD, 3.40; 95% CI, 1.93 to 4.87; p < .00001). High and significant heterogeneity was found for all comparisons. In conclusion, Er:YAG, Nd:YAG, and GaAlAs lasers appear to be efficacious in reducing DH. However, given the high heterogeneity of the included studies, future randomized controlled clinical trials are needed to confirm these results.

There is little evidence that smoking is a risk factor for peri-implantitis. However, given the low number of included studies, future studies are needed to confirm these results.

This meta-analysis was conducted to investigate the efficacy and safety of antimicrobial photodynamic therapy used alone or adjunctive to scaling root planing in patients with chronic periodontitis. The meta-analysis was conducted according to the QUOROM statement and recommendations of the Cochrane Collaboration. An extensive literature search was performed on seven databases, followed by a manual search. Weighted mean differences and 95% confidence intervals were calculated for clinical attachment level, probing depth and gingival recession. The I(2) test was used for inter-study heterogeneity; visual asymmetry inspection of the funnel plot, Egger's regression test and the trim-and-fill method were used to investigate publication bias. At 3 months, significant differences in clinical attachment level (p = 0.006) and probing depth reduction (p = 0.02) were observed for scaling root planing with antimicrobial photodynamic therapy, while no significant differences were retrieved for antimicrobial photodynamic therapy used alone; at 6 months no significant differences were observed for any investigated outcome. Neither heterogeneity nor publication bias was detected. The use of antimicrobial photodynamic therapy adjunctive to conventional treatment provides short-term benefits, but microbiological outcomes are contradictory. There is no evidence of effectiveness for the use of antimicrobial photodynamic therapy as alternative to scaling root planing. Long-term randomized controlled clinical trials reporting data on microbiological changes and costs are needed to support the long-term efficacy of adjunctive antimicrobial photodynamic therapy and the reliability of antimicrobial photodynamic therapy as alternative treatment to scaling root planing.