The clinical efficacy of laser in the nonsurgical treatment of peri-implantitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Abstract

To systematically assess studies regarding the efficacy of lasers in the nonsurgical treatment of peri-implantitis. Electronic and manual searches were performed by two reviewers independently. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing lasers vs. mechanical debridement or air abrasive on primary outcome (probing depth (PD)) and secondary outcomes (bone loss, bleeding on probing (BOP), clinical attachment level (CAL) and plaque index (PI)) were included. Data extraction and quality assessment were conducted independently. Weighted mean difference (WMD) or standardized mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were calculated for continuous outcomes. Publication bias, leave-one-out analysis and GRADE assessment were conducted. 13 eligible publications were included in the review and 12 in the meta-analysis. Solid-state lasers significantly improved in PD (WMD = -0.39, 95% CI (-0.70, -0.09), p = 0.01, moderate-certainty evidence), BOP (SMD =-0.76, 95% CI (-1.23, -0.28), p = 0.002, moderate-certainty evidence) and CAL (WMD =-0.19, 95% CI (-0.39, -0.00), p = 0.05, moderate-certainty evidence), but not in bone loss (WMD = 0.03, 95% CI (-0.13, 0.18), p = 0.74, low-certainty evidence) and PI (SMD =-0.19, 95% CI (-0.42, 0.04), p = 0.11, moderate-certainty evidence) compared with the control group. However, the diode lasers showed no clinical advantages. No publication bias was detected, and leave-one-out analysis confirmed the robustness of findings. In the nonsurgical treatment of peri-implantitis, solid-state lasers yielded positive influence in term of PD, BOP and CAL, while diode laser provided no beneficial effect. Future well-designed large RCTs are still needed, considering the limitations of included studies. This review aimed to guide clinicians in choosing the appropriate laser for peri-implantitis, enhancing treatment strategies and attaining better outcomes.