Interventions for replacing missing teeth: maintaining and re-establishing healthy tissues around dental implants.
BACKGROUND
To maintain healthy tissues around oral implants it is important to institute an effective preventive regimen (supportive therapy) and when a pathologic condition of the tissue around implants is diagnosed, an intervention should be initiated as soon as possible. Different maintenance regimens and treatment strategies for failing implants have been suggested, however it is unclear which are the most effective.


OBJECTIVE
To test the null hypothesis of no difference between different interventions for maintaining or re-establishing healthy tissues around dental implants.


METHODS
The Cochrane Oral Health Group Specialised Register, The Cochrane Controlled Trials Register, MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched. Hand searching included several dental journals. In addition, authors of all identified trials, fifty-five oral implant manufacturers and two extensive personal libraries (ME and AJ) were consulted.


METHODS
All randomised controlled trials of oral implants comparing agents or interventions for maintaining or re-establishing healthy tissues around dental implants.


METHODS
Data were independently extracted, in duplicate, by two reviewers (ME & HW). Authors were contacted for details of randomisation and withdrawals and a quality assessment was carried out. The Cochrane Oral Health Group's statistical guidelines were followed.


RESULTS
Nine RCTs were identified. Five of these trials, which reported results from a total of 127 patients, were suitable for inclusion in the review.


CONCLUSIONS
There is only a little reliable evidence for which are the most effective interventions for maintaining health around peri-implant tissues. There was no evidence that the use of powered or sonic toothbrushes was superior to manual toothbrushing. There is a weak evidence that Listerine mouthwash, used twice a day for 30 seconds, as adjunct to routine oral hygiene is effective in reducing plaque formation and marginal bleeding around implants. There was no evidence that phosphoric etching gel offered any clinical advantage over mechanical debridement. These findings are based on RCTs having short follow-up periods and few subjects. There is not any reliable evidence for the most effective regimens for long-term maintenance. For the treatment of failing implants (peri-implantitis) there is not any reliable evidence for preferring one therapeutic regimen over another. More RCTs should be conducted in this area. In particular, there is a definite need for trials investigating which is the most effective approach for the treatment of peri-implantitis and for trials with longer follow-up for maintenance. Such trials should be reported according the CONSORT guidelines (http://www.consort-statement.org/).
Department of Biomaterials, The Sahlgrenska Academy at Goteborg University, PO Box 412, Medicinaregatan 8B, Goteborg, Sweden, SE-40530. marco.esposito@biomaterials.gu.se
M
M
Esposito
H V
HV
Worthington
P
P
Coulthard
A
A
Jokstad
D015921:Dental Implants; D019232:Dental Restoration Failure; D005882:Gingival Diseases / Q000517:prevention & control / Q000628:therapy*; D006801:Humans; D016032:Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; D016388:Tooth Loss / Q000534:rehabilitation*
D015921:Dental Implants