Abstract
Background
Nonsurgical treatment of peri‐implantitis may help in reducing microbial load and inflammatory parameters. The potential clinical benefits of using different treatment approaches, in the initial nonsurgical treatment phase, particularly the airflow, are still not clear. The aim of this systematic review and meta‐analyses was to evaluate the outcomes of nonsurgical treatment of peri‐implantitis using airflow method in terms of changes in periodontal parameters, peri‐implant marginal bone level, postoperative pain/discomfort, and patient satisfaction.
Methods
Electronic databases were searched to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared airflow with mechanical debridement using ultrasonic/curettes. The risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias tool. Data were analyzed using a statistical software program.
Results
A total of 316 studies were identified, of which, five RCTs with 288 dental implants in 174 participants were included. Overall meta‐analysis showed more reduction in probing pocket depths at 1–3 months (mean difference [MD] −0.23; 95% confidence interval [CI] −0.50–0.05; p = 0.10) and 6 months (MD −0.04; 95% CI −0.34 to 0.27; p = 0.80) in favor of airflow, but the difference was not statistically significant. The use of airflow was associated with significant reduction in bleeding on probing and increase in peri‐implant mucosal recession. The differences in plaque score, peri‐implant marginal bone level changes, and patient reported outcomes between airflow and mechanical debridement were not statistically significant.
Conclusions
The short‐term clinical and radiographic outcomes following nonsurgical treatment of peri‐implantitis using airflow or mechanical debridement were comparable. The airflow has short‐term positive effects on reducing bleeding on probing. Further evidence from RCTs are still required to substantiate the current findings.