15
HERRERA ET AL .
TABLE 4
(Continued)
Reference
Systematic review title
PICOS question (as written in the original article)
proposed recommendations were presented, voted upon and adopted by consensus (Murphy et al., 1998). Delegates declaring potential con- flicts of interest (CoI) abstained from voting and abstentions were recorded. Prior to the in-person meeting, three online meetings were organized (one at the plenary level, and two at the WG level) in September and October 2022, to advance the process of guideline development to a mature stage prior to the face-to-face consensus meeting. In the small group phase, delegates convened in four WGs directed by two to three chairpersons belonging to the EFP Workshop Committee, addressing the following subtopics: • WG #1. Peri-implant health and Prevention (chairs Iain Chapple and Søren Jepsen). • WG #2. Management of Peri-implant mucositis (chairs Mariano Sanz and Anton Sculean). • WG #3. Management of Peri-implantitis — non-surgical (chairs David Herrera, Moritz Kebschull and Maurizio Tonetti). • WG #4. Management of Peri-implantitis — surgical (chairs Tord Berglundh, Panos N. Papapanou and Frank Schwarz). instrumentation including additional measures performed for both test and control groups (e.g., local application of antimicrobials and/or additional mechanical/physical measures) (comparison) in changing signs of inflammation (outcomes), as reported in RCTs and CCTs with a follow-up period of at least 6 months (study design)? In adult patients with peri-implantitis, what is the efficacy of surgical therapy with adjunctive chemical surface decontamination of implant surfaces in comparison with surgical therapy alone or with placebo, in terms of PD reduction and bleeding on probing (BOP)/suppuration on probing (SOP) as reported in RCTs and non-randomized controlled clinical trials (non-RCTs) with a follow-up of at least 6 months? In patients with peri-implantitis, what is the efficacy of surgical therapy combined with systemic or local antimicrobials, in comparison with surgical therapy alone, in terms of pocket PD reduction, as assessed in RCTs with at least 6 months of follow-up? #1. In patients with peri-implantitis, what is the efficacy of different bone reconstructive therapies compared to access flap surgery in terms of pocket reduction and change in bleeding/suppuration on probing, at a minimum of 12-month of follow-up? #2. In patients with peri-implantitis, what is the long-term ( ≥ 12months) performance of reconstructive therapies in terms of pocket reduction, change in BOP/suppuration? #1. In patients with peri-implantitis (population), what is the efficacy of adjunctive or alternative mechanical/physical measures for implant surface decontamination in conjunction with surgical peri-implantitis treatment (intervention) compared with standard surface instrumentation (comparison) in changing signs of inflammation (outcomes), as reported in RCTs and CCTs with a follow-up period of at least 6 months (study design)? #2. In patients with peri-implantitis (population), what is the efficacy of adjunctive or alternative mechanical/physical measures for implant surface decontamination in conjunction with surgical peri-implantitis treatment (intervention) compared with standard surface
Donos et al. (2023)
The efficacy of bone reconstructive therapies in the management of peri-implantitis. A systematic review and meta-analysis
Ramanauskaite et al. (2023)
Mechanical and physical implant surface decontamination approaches in conjunction with surgical peri-implantitis treatment: A systematic review
Wilensky et al. (2023)
The efficacy of implant surface decontamination using chemicals during surgical treatment of peri-implantitis: A systematic review and meta- analysis.
Teughels et al. (2023)
Adjunctive locally and systemically delivered antimicrobials during surgical treatment of peri- implantitis.
scale was used (http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/ oxford.asp).
3.2.7 | Data synthesis
Where applicable, the available evidence was summarized by means of a meta-analysis.
3.3
| From evidence to recommendation:
Structured consensus process
The structured consensus development conference was held during the XVIII European Workshop in Periodontology in La Granja de San Ildefonso Segovia, Spain, between November 6 and 9, 2022. Using the 13 SRs as background information, evidence-based recommenda- tions were formally debated by the guideline panel using the format of a structured consensus development conference. This consisted of small group discussions and open plenary discussions, where the
Made with FlippingBook Annual report