A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Surgical regenerative methods for peri-implantitis treatment: A systematic review and meta-analysis. | LitMetric

Background: The purpose of this study was to review the literature on the efficacy of different surgical regenerative methods for peri-implantitis treatment.

Methods: A preliminary search was conducted in seven electronic databases. The studies included in the analysis implemented surgical regenerative treatment in at least one study group. Baseline and follow-up values for bleeding on probing (BoP), pocket depth (PD), plaque index (PI), bone level (BL), and bone gain (BG) were extracted. The standardized mean difference (SMD) was calculated using Cohen's d or Hedges' g, and a random-effects-restricted maximum likelihood (REML) method was applied for the meta-analysis.

Results: Fifteen studies were included in the qualitative synthesis. The meta-analysis was performed on six studies comparing regenerative techniques that involved bone grafts with those that did not. The overall effect size for using bone grafts at the one-year follow-up was 0.04 (95% CI: -0.26‒0.35; =0.78) for BoP, -0.08 (95% CI: -0.42‒0.27; =0.66) for PD, 0.37 (95% CI: 0.08‒0.65; =0.01) for PI, -0.44 (95% CI: -0.84 to -0.03; =0.03) for BL, and 0.16 (95% CI: -0.68‒1.01; =0.70) for BG.

Conclusion: Various materials have been employed for peri-implant defect filling and coverage. A bone substitute did not significantly improve BoP, PD, and BG values, while PI and BL were significantly ameliorated at one-year follow-up. However, recommending a single unified protocol as the most effective for surgical regenerative treatment of peri-implantitis was not feasible.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11699266PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.34172/japid.2024.013DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

surgical regenerative
16
regenerative methods
8
methods peri-implantitis
8
studies included
8
regenerative treatment
8
bone grafts
8
one-year follow-up
8
bone
5
95%
5
surgical
4

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!