↓ Skip to main content

Efficacy of alternative or adjunctive measures to conventional treatment of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Implant Dentistry, August 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (78th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
2 tweeters
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
83 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
162 Mendeley
Title
Efficacy of alternative or adjunctive measures to conventional treatment of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Published in
International Journal of Implant Dentistry, August 2015
DOI 10.1186/s40729-015-0023-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Frank Schwarz, Andrea Schmucker, Jürgen Becker

Abstract

In patients with peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis, what is the efficacy of nonsurgical (i.e. referring to peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis) and surgical (i.e. referring to peri-implantitis) treatments with alternative or adjunctive measures on changing signs of inflammation compared with conventional nonsurgical (i.e. mechanical/ultrasonic debridement) and surgical (i.e. open flap debridement) treatments alone? After electronic database and hand search, a total of 40 publications (reporting on 32 studies) were finally considered for the qualitative and quantitative assessment. The weighted mean changes (WM)/ and WM differences (WMD) were estimated for bleeding on probing scores (BOP) and probing pocket depths (PD) (random effect model). Peri-implant mucositis: WMD in BOP and PD reductions amounted to -8.16 % [SE = 4.61] and -0.15 mm [SE = 0.13], not favouring adjunctive antiseptics/antibiotics (local and systemic) over control measures (p > 0.05). Peri-implantitis (nonsurgical): WMD in BOP scores amounted to -23.12 % [SE = 4.81] and -16.53 % [SE = 4.41], favouring alternative measures (glycine powder air polishing, Er:YAG laser) for plaque removal and adjunctive local antibiotics over control measures (p < 0.001), respectively. Peri-implantitis (surgical): WMD in BOP and PD reductions did not favour alternative over control measures for surface decontamination. WM reductions following open flap surgery (±resective therapy) and adjunctive augmentative therapy amounted to 34.81 and 50.73 % for BOP and 1.75 and 2.20 mm for PD, respectively. While mechanical debridement alone was found to be effective for the management of peri-implant mucositis, alternative/adjunctive measures may improve the efficacy over/of conventional nonsurgical treatments at peri-implantitis sites. Adjunctive resective and/or augmentative measures are promising; however, their beneficial effect on the clinical outcome of surgical treatments needs to be further investigated.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 162 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
New Zealand 1 <1%
Italy 1 <1%
Unknown 160 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 27 17%
Student > Postgraduate 22 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 16 10%
Other 13 8%
Researcher 11 7%
Other 31 19%
Unknown 42 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 96 59%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 2%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 1%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 1%
Other 5 3%
Unknown 51 31%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 31 May 2016.
All research outputs
#1,396,601
of 7,831,397 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Implant Dentistry
#1
of 13 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#49,067
of 229,932 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Implant Dentistry
#1
of 2 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 7,831,397 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 13 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 1.0. This one scored the same or higher as 12 of them.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 229,932 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 2 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them