Table 3 Main results and conclusions
| Â | PD | BOP | PI | Conclusions | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
The first author, the year | Experimental | Control | Experimental | Control | Experimental | Control | Conclusions |
Pourabbas, 2023 [21] | -1.88 ± 0.8 | -1.5 ± 1.25 | -27.52 ± 23.41 | -45.67 ± 20.3 | / | / | The addition of PDT to mechanical therapy did not provide any additional improvements in the clinical or biological parameters of peri‑implant mucosal inflammation. |
Aldosari, 2023 [17] | -4.66 ± 0.7 | -3.2 ± 0.2 | -3.3 ± 0.05 | -0.98 ± 0.04 | -2.6 ± 0.2 | -1.1 ± 0.07 | One session of aPDT after MD with adjunct aPDT is effective in reducing soft tissue inflammation in patients with PiM. |
Javed, 2017 [20] | -5.9 ± 0.3 | -2.8 ± 0.4 | -1.4 ± 1.1 | -1.7 ± 0.7 | -37.2 ± 9.2 | -28 ± 5.7 | MD with adjunct aPDT is more effective in the treatment of peri-implant mucositis in smokers compared with MD alone. |
Alsayed, 2023 [18] | -0.68 ± 0.75 | -0.84 ± 0.76 | -27.78 ± 26 | -27.66 ± 26.6 | -28.94 ± 28.2 | -24.15 ± 29 | PDT showed statistically significant improvements in peri‑implant clinical, radiographic, microbiological, and immunological parameters as compared to conventional MD. |
Deeb, 2020 [19] | -0.9 ± 1.1 | -0.4 ± 0.9 | -4.3 ± 4.4 | -1.8 ± 4 | -33 ± 8.4 | -30.5 ± 7.1 | PDT as an adjunct to MD is as efficacious as adjunctive AB therapy. However, additional benefits in the reduction of bleeding scores were observed for PDT in peri-implant inflammation among cigarette smokers. |
Shetty, 2022 [23] | -4.2 ± 0.2 | -1.9 ± 0.28 | / | / | -2.3 ± 0.4 | -0.8 ± 0.2 | A single session of aPDT as an adjunct to MD is effective in reducing peri-implant soft tissue inflammation and OYC in patients with PIM. |
Al Rifaiy, 2018 [16] | -2.2 ± 0.7 | -2.3 ± 0.8 | -2.9 ± 2.9 | -1.3 ± 0.9 | -37.9 ± 9.2 | -19.3 ± 8.4 | Antimicrobial PDT is more effective compared to MD alone in the treatment of p-iM in individuals vaping e-cigs. |