32
HERRERA ET AL .
high heterogeneity of the data. However, risk of bias was deemed low in 87% of the studies. The WG participants felt there were sufficient data to address the overarching question of whether regular provision of SPIC improved peri-implant tissue stability following surgical treat- ment of peri-implantitis, in an evidence-based manner; however, most recommendations are based upon expert consensus. There were addi- tional questions deemed to be of importance to clinical practice that were not directly informed by the SR, but for which the workshop for- mulated recommendations based on the literature base. Given the paucity of available studies ( n = 15), the background study characteristics provided following the recommendation tables are deemed applicable to all recommendations.
PICOS question addressed by an SR
R5.12: Expert consensus-based statement (1) and evidence-based recommendation (2) • Is provided 3 – 4 months for the first 12 months, commencing 3 months after surgery . • Frequency is thereafter tailored according to patient-, implant- and restoration-based risk factors . Supporting literature (Stiesch et al., 2023) Quality of evidence Low Grade of recommendation GradeB — " Strength of consensus Unanimous consensus (0% of the group abstained due to potential CoI)
R5.11. In patients treated for peri-implantitis, does supportive peri-implant care (SPIC) prevent recurrence of peri-implantitis in the medium to long term ( ≥ 3 years)?
Background
See background text in R5.16, common for recommendations R5.11 – 16.
PICOS question addressed by an SR
R5.13. In patients treated for peri-implantitis, what is the appropriate protocol for supportive peri-implant care provision (SPIC)?
R5.11: Evidence-based recommendation We recommend the provision of SPIC to reduce the risk of recurrence of peri-implantitis and consequent implant loss, emphasizing to the patient the importance of their adherence to SPIC visits and home care . Supporting literature (Roccuzzo, Imber, et al., 2022; Stiesch et al., 2023) Quality of evidence Low (indirect evidence) Grade of recommendation GradeA — "" Strength of consensus Unanimous consensus (0% of the group abstained due to potential CoI)
PICOS question addressed by an SR
R5.13: Expert consensus-based recommendation We recommend that the implementation of a patient-centred SPIC protocol should include the following components : • Interview (medical, social and oral history update, risk assessment, patient feedback) • Assessment of oral, including peri-implant tissue health, prosthetic components and patient competence, to undertake OH • Reinforce risk factor control (e.g., smoking, oral dryness, glycaemic control) • Professional intervention: individualized oral healthcare plan, including OH coaching, PMPR to include entire dentition/implants • determination of next recall interval tailored according to patient-, implant- and restoration-based risk factors . a Supporting literature (Carra et al., 2023; Stiesch et al., 2023) Quality of evidence Very low (indirect evidence for some components) Grade of recommendation GradeA — "" Strength of consensus Unanimous consensus (0% of the group abstained due to potential CoI) a The protocol applies to any patient with dental implants.
Background
See background text in R5.16, common for recommendations R5.11 – 16.
R5.12. In patients treated for peri-implantitis, what is the recommended frequency of supportive peri- implant care (SPIC)?
PICOS question addressed by an SR
R5.12: Expert consensus-based statement (1) and evidence-based recommendation (2) (1) Following non-surgical treatment of peri-implantitis, we suggest SPIC be provided 3 – 4 months for the first 12 months, commencing 3 months after treatment and thereafter the frequency be tailored according to patient-, implant- and restoration-based risk factors . (2) We suggest that, following surgical treatment of peri-implantitis, SPIC :
Background
See background text in R5.16, common for recommendations R5.11 – 16.
Made with FlippingBook Annual report