Evaluation of peri-implant tissues around nanopore surface implants with or without platelet rich fibrin: a clinico-radiographic study

Khan, Zia Arshad; Jhingran, Rajesh; Bains, Vivek Kumar; Madan, Rohit; Srivastava, Ruchi; Rizvi, Iram

doi:10.1088/1748-605x/aa8fa3

Cited by 13 publications

(42 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Sixteen full text articles were reviewed. Eleven of the sixteen articles were excluded as they did not meet eligibility criteria (appendix table 1) [35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45]. The remaining five studies were included in the present systematic review group [14,[46][47][48][49] (Appendix Figure 1).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Efficacy of growth factors for the treatment of peri-implant diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis on the efficacy of growth factors (GF) on clinical outcomes after treatment (surgical/non-surgical) of peri-implant diseases (peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis). MATERIALS AND METHODS A protocol was developed to answer the following focused question: Is there any difference for the use of GF for treatment of peri-implant diseases versus comparative GF treatment or without GF? Electronic database and manual searches were independently conducted to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Publications were selected based on eligibility criteria and then assessed for risk-of-bias using the Cochrane Handbook. The primary outcome was probing depth (PD) and bleeding on probing (BOP) reduction along with changes in vertical defect depth (VDD). Changes in clinical attachment level, gingival recession, and plaque index, among others, were studied as secondary outcomes. Based on primary outcomes, random-effects meta-analysis was conducted. RESULTS A total of five RCTs were included. GF enhance the reduction of PD (standardized mean difference (SMD) = -1.28; 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.75, -0.79; p = < 0.0001) and BOP (SMD = -1.23; 95% CI -1.70, -0.76; p = < 0.0001) in the management of peri-implant mucositis. For the treatment of peri-implantitis, the use of GF yielded to significantly greater improvement in VDD (SMD = 0.68; 95% CI 0.22, 1.14; p = 0.004); however, there were no significant differences in terms of PD (SMD = 0.08; 95% CI -1.08, 1.26; p = 0.887) and BOP (SMD = 0.211; 95% CI -0.20, 0.63; p = 0.317). The overall risk of bias of the included studies was low to unclear. CONCLUSION The results of the present systematic review suggest that the addition of GF might enhance the outcomes in the treatment of peri-implant mucositis. However, there is a lack of evidence for supporting additional benefit of GF managing peri-implantitis. CLINICAL RELEVANCE Within the limitations of the current systematic review and based on the meta-analyses, (1) the addition of GF for the treatment peri-implant mucositis might be associated with better outcomes in terms of PD and BOP, and (2) an additional benefit of GF for the treatment peri-implantitis could not be determined on the basis of the selected evidence.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Efficacy of growth factors for the treatment of peri-implant diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…After reading the full text of those 39 papers, 13 were discarded for not analyzing IIP, 6 for an absence or inadequate control group, 6 for being retrospective observational studies or case reports, 3 studies related to sinus lift, two for not assessing MBL and one for performing flapless procedures. Finally, 8 studies were included in our systematic review [ 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 ] ( Figure 1 ). Only two of the three groups of Alam et al [ 38 ] study were considered in this review (PCs + bone graft group vs. only bone graft group).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The selected articles were published between 2015 and 2020 [ 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 ]. One study was a CCT [ 32 ] and seven studies were RCTS [ 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 ]. Three of the selected studies had a split-mouth design [ 32 , 33 , 37 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Effect of Platelet Concentrates on Marginal Bone Loss of Immediate Implant Procedures: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: To evaluate marginal bone loss (MBL) in immediate implant procedures (IIP) placed in conjunction with platelet concentrates (PCs) compared to IIP without PCs. Methods: A search was performed in four databases. Clinical trials evaluating MBL of IIP placed with and without PCs were included. The random effects model was conducted for meta-analysis. Results: Eight clinical trials that evaluated MBL in millimeters were included. A total of 148 patients and 232 immediate implants were evaluated. The meta-analysis showed a statistically significant reduction on MBL of IIP placed with PCs when compared to the non-PCs group at 6 months (p < 0.00001) and 12 months (p < 0.00001) follow-ups. No statistically significant differences were observed on MBL of IIP when compared PCs + bone graft group vs. only bone grafting at 6 months (p = 0.51), and a significant higher MBL of IIP placed with PCs + bone graft when compared to only bone grafting at 12 months was found (p = 0.03). Conclusions: MBL of IIP at 6 and 12 months follow-ups is lower when PCs are applied in comparison to not placing PCs, which may lead to more predictable implant treatments in the medium term. However, MBL seems not to diminish when PCs + bone graft are applied when compared to only bone grafting.

show abstract

“…Immediate implant loading for completely mandibular edentulous arches gained favorable clinical achievements in the long term [10]. Khan, et al [11] claimed that platelet rich fibrin has a role in preventing bone loss during the surgical to prosthetic phase [11].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Immediate Implant Loading in Osteoporotic Patients: Mini Review

Hantash¹

2018

OAJDS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Evaluation of peri-implant tissues around nanopore surface implants with or without platelet rich fibrin: a clinico-radiographic study

Abstract: PRF treatment may provide a way to prevent BL during the surgical-to-prosthetic phase. These results were based on a short-term, low sample randomized clinical study, therefore a long-term study with more sites and homogenous sampling is recommended.

Cited by 13 publications

References 29 publications

Efficacy of growth factors for the treatment of peri-implant diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Efficacy of growth factors for the treatment of peri-implant diseases: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Effect of Platelet Concentrates on Marginal Bone Loss of Immediate Implant Procedures: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Immediate Implant Loading in Osteoporotic Patients: Mini Review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About