Validated surrogate endpoints needed for peri-implantitis

Abstract

DATA SOURCES: Pubmed, Cochrane and Lilac databases, Google, Google Scholar, hand searching of websites of major dental journals. The reference list of five recently published systematic reviews on peri-implantitis treatment were also screened for potential studies.

STUDY SELECTION: Randomised controlled trials and non-randomised studies in English, German, French, Spanish and Italian on peri-implantitis treatment in humans were included. Case series, case reports and cross sectional or non-therapy studies were excluded from the assessment of endpoints. No minimum follow up time was set for studies that were included.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Data were extracted in duplicate by two reviewers and disagreements were resolved by consensus. True endpoints for peri-implantitis treatment were considered only if they provided evidence of tangible benefit to the patient. The outcome variables regarded as true endpoints were implant failure, aesthetic assessment and variables related to quality of life, but these were only considered if they were clearly identified as an objective of the research, not as an outcome of treatment. Surrogate endpoints were considered as those measurements of clinical outcomes such as probing pocket depth and clinical attachment level.

RESULTS: Fourteen studies were included in this review with data on implant failure presented solely as consequence of peri-implantitis therapy. No true endpoint was described for any study on peri-implantitis. Mean pocket probing depth, clinical attachment level and bleeding on probing were the three surrogate endpoints cited most often in the literature.

CONCLUSIONS: All endpoints used in the trials reviewed are surrogates of clinical events, such as implant failure. Clinical surrogate endpoints should be validated to assess the real effect of these measures on true endpoints.