【摘要】 目的:系统评价光动力疗法(photodynamic therapy,PDT)联合非手术方法治疗种植体周围炎的疗效。方法:通过计算机检索The Cochrane Library、PubMed、Embase、Web of Science、中国知网、万方数据库、维普期刊数据库及中国生物医学文献数据库发表的期刊文献、会议论文和学位论文,收集建库至2018年4月1日公开发表的关于光动力疗法联合非手术治疗对比单纯非手术治疗种植体周围炎的随机对照试验,2名评价员按照文献纳入、排除标准,独立进行文献筛选、数据提取、质量评价并相互核对后,应用Revman 5.3软件进行meta分析。结果:最终有6篇文献符合纳入条件。Meta分析结果显示,PDT联合非手术治疗和单纯非手术治疗相比,3个月后2组附着水平的差异无统计学意义[WMD=-1.13,95%CI(-3.51,1.25),P=0.35];3个月后2组的种植体周探诊深度及6个月后2组之间探诊出血指数的差异有统计学意义,分别为[WMD=-0.81,95%CI(-1.52,-0.11),P=0.02]和[WMD=-5.15, 95%CI(-6.29,-4.01),P<0.00001]。结论:在种植体周围炎的治疗中,PDT联合非手术治疗相比单纯非手术治疗,可对种植体周探诊深度及探诊出血有更为明显的改善,但两者对附着水平改善效果差别不大。更多还原

【Abstract】 PURPOSE:This meta-analysis was undertaken to evaluate the efficacy of photodynamic therapy(PDT) in combination with non-surgical therapy compared to non-surgical therapy alone for patients with peri-implantitis.METHODS:Bibliographic databases including Cochrane Library,PubMed,EMbase,Web of Science,CNKI,VIP,Wanfang Data and CBM were searched from inception to April 1 st 2018,to collect randomized controlled trials(RCTs) of photodynamic therapy in combination with non-surgical therapy and non-surgical therapy alone for peri-implantitis.Two reviewers independently screened the literature according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria,extracted the data,and assessed the quality.Then after cross-checking,meta analyses was performed by using RevMan 5.3 software.Meta analysis of probing depth(PD),bleeding on probing(BOP) and clinical attachment level(CAL) was conducted using weighted mean differences(WMD) for continuous data with 95% confidence intervals(CI).RESULTS:Six studies met the inclusion criteria.Meta analysis results showed that compared to non-surgical therapy alone,PDT in combination with non-surgical therapy showed significant differences in PD(WMD=-0.81,95%CI-1.52 to-0.11,P=0.02),BOP(WMD=-5.15,95%CI-6.29 to-4.01,P<0.00001),but no significant differences in CAL(WMD=-1.13,95%CI-3.51 to 1.25,P=0.35).CONCLUSIONS:In the treatment of peri-implantitis,compared to non-surgical therapy alone,non-surgical therapy with PDT was more effective in reduction of probing depth and probing bleeding,but it did not significantly improve clinical attachment level.For the quantity and quality limitation of the included studies,the conclusion has to be further proved by performing more well-designed and high quality RCTs.更多还原