Is mechanical curettage with adjunct photodynamic therapy more effective in the treatment of peri-implantitis than mechanical curettage alone?

- In total 9 studies were included in the present systematic review.
- In 4 clinical studies, there was no difference in periodontal parameters when mechanical debridement (MC) was performed either with or without PDT.
- In 3 experimental studies, outcomes were significantly better in group with PDT as an adjunct to MC when compared to MC alone at follow-up.

BackgroundThe aim of the present study was to review the pertinent literature on the effects of mechanical curettage (MC) with and without adjunct photodynamic therapy (PDT) for the management of peri-implantitis.MethodsThe addressed focused question was “Is PDT effective in the treatment of peri-implantitis?” A search without language or time restrictions up to March 2016 was conducted using various key words. The exclusion criteria included; review papers, in vitro Studies, case reports, commentaries, interviews, and letters to the editors.ResultsIn total 9 studies were included. Among them 5 studies were clinical and 4 were experimental. All the studies used PDT as an adjunctive to MC in their test groups. The laser wavelengths used ranged from 660 nm to 830 nm. One study showed significant reduction of the bleeding scores, inflammatory exudates and Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans count in group with PDT as an adjunctive when compared to MC and 0.2% chlorhexidine. However, in four clinical studies comparable periodontal parameters were reported when PDT is used as an adjunct to MC was compared to MC in treatment of peri-implantitis. In three experimental studies, outcomes were significantly better in group with PDT as an adjunct to MC when compared to MC alone at follow-up.ConclusionThe role of PDT as an adjunct to MC in the treatment of peri-implantitis is debatable. Further longterm randomised control trails are needed to justify the role PDT as an adjunct to MC in treatment of peri-implantitis.