Surface decontamination protocols for surgical treatment of peri‐implantitis: A systematic review with meta‐analysis

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).