Glycine air-polishing versus curette debridement for the treatment of peri-implant mucositis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract The authors aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of glycine air-polishing compared to curette debridement on the treatment of peri-implant diseases. PRISMA guidelines for systematic reviews were followed. Clinical trials of patients diagnosed with peri-implant mucositis or peri-implantitis treated with glycine air-polishing or curette debridement were selected. Six electronic databases (Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE via PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science and BVS) were searched until july 2021. The risk of bias was assessed using RoB 2 and ROBINS-I tools and the certainty of the evidence using GRADE. Bleeding on probing (BOP), probing depth (PD) and plaque index (PI) were assessed. Subgroup analyses were performed considering the follow-up period for peri-implant mucositis. Seven studies were included and meta-analyses were performed with three randomized clinical trials (RCTs), all presenting a low risk of bias. Low quality of evidence was achieved. Both treatments presented similar global results on the BOP and PI peri-implant mucositis analyses. Glycine air-polishing showed better results (p=0.04; I2=90%) on PD peri-implant mucositis meta-analysis. Data was insufficient to perform any analysis considering peri-implantitis. Although there was modest effect of glycine air polishing on probing depth compared to manual curatagge, there is insufficient evidence to suggest either glycine air-polishing or curette debridement to reduce signs of peri-implant diseases (CRD42019128599).