Efficacy of air polishing for the non‐surgical treatment of peri‐implant diseases: a systematic review

In patients suffering from peri-implant diseases, what is the efficacy of air polishing on changing signs of inflammation compared with control treatments (i.e. alternative measures for plaque removal with or without adjunctive antiseptic and/ or antibiotic therapy)?After electronic database and hand search, 10 full-text articles were independently screened by two reviewers. Finally, a total of five studies (six publications) fulfilled the inclusion criteria. The weighted mean difference (WMD) [p; 95% CI] in bleeding on probing- (BOP) (primary outcome) and probing pocket depth- (PD) reductions was estimated using a random effect model.All studies reported on residual BOP scores after therapy. A narrative data synthesis did not reveal any major improvement of bleeding index/ BOP or disease resolution following air polishing over mechanical debridement at mucositis sites. At peri-implantitis sites, WMD in BOP reduction between test and control (mechanical debridement with or without local antiseptic therapy, Er:YAG laser) groups was -23.83% [p = 0.048; 95% CI (-47.47, -0.20)] favouring air polishing over control measures.While glycine powder air polishing is as effective as the control treatments at mucositis sites, it may improve the efficacy of non-surgical treatment of peri-implantitis over the control measures investigated. A complete disease resolution was commonly not obtained.