A comparative evaluation of lasers and photodynamic therapy in the nonsurgical treatment of peri-implant diseases: A Bayesian network meta-analysis

Purpose: We conducted this Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) to evaluate the safety and efficacy of different lasers and PDT compared to conventional mechanical debridement (CMD) for peri-implant treatment.Methods: The Web of Science, Cochrane Library and PubMed databases were searched for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) assessing the clinical effectiveness of adjunctive PDT, different lasers, and CMD until January 1st, 2022. Clinical outcomes were the changes in pocket probing depth (PPD), marginal bone loss (MBL), and clinical attachment level (CAL).Results: Twenty-three studies, including 4 types of lasers, were included. Compared to that with CMD alone, PPD reduction was significantly more efficient in the diode laser (LD)+CMD groups (MD, 0.53; 95%CI, 0.13-0.93) and the PDT+CMD groups (MD, 0.83; 95%CI, 0.32-1.34) than in the CMD group in the follow-up period. Moreover, PDT+CMD treatment also showed a significantly better marginal bone level gain (MD, 0.32; 95%CI, 0.06-0.57). No significant effect on Delta CAL was observed among the different treatment strategies. Despite no differences in PPD reduction, MBL and CAL gains were found among the adjunctive laser treatment groups, PDT+CMD had the highest ranking probability of the most effective treatment in these clinical indices of periodontitis. The certainty of evidence for all outcomes was judged as very low to moderate.Conclusions: Within the limits of this NMA, we found that adjunctive PDT achieved a small additional benefit on PPD reduction and MBL gain compared with CMD alone and had the highest probability of being ranked first on the changes in PPD, MBL and CAL. PDT+CMD may represent an alternative method for peri-implant treatment. Further high-quality RCTs are needed to assess the influence of potential confounders on the efficacy of lasers and PDT.