# Peri-Implantitis Therapy Using Surgical Methods:
## 3 Results
### Study Characteristics
Moreover, while BoP was observed in all implants at baseline, this parameter was observed only in 10 of 40 implants two years after therapy. Furthermore, at baseline, suppuration was observed in 70% of implants, while this value, two years post-therapy, was 2.5%. Finally, the results of this study suggest that using a combination of the apically positioned flap, osteoplasty, and implantablely is a promising approach for the peri-implantitis treatment; however, increased gingival recessions can be a limitation to restrict its use in aesthetic areas. [PERSON] et al. [34] used two different reconstructive surgical treatments of peri-implantitis including a xenogenic bone grafting material combined with either concentrated growth factor (CGF; group 1) or collagen membrane (CM; group 2) and compared the three-year clinical and radiographic outcomes. Both approaches were found effective in treating peri-implantitis; however, using CM, compared to CGF, was found to be more efficient in improving the peri-implantitis treatment outcome in terms of PPD, RBG, plaque score, and BoP [34]. In addition to surgical therapies, patients in [PERSON] et al. [33], [PERSON] et al. [31], [PERSON] et al. [25], and [PERSON] et al. [34] were prescribed antibiotics and analgesics. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Study** & [25] & [31] & [32] & [33] & [34] \\ \hline Study design & Randomized controlled clinical trial & Randomized clinical trial & Longitudinal comparison & Randomized clinical trial & Randomized clinical trial \\ \hline Sample size & 25 patients & 30 patients & 23 patients & 25 patients & 51 patients \\
45 implants & 30 implants & 23 implants & 40 implants & 52 implants \\ \hline Follow-up duration (year) & 5 & 3 & 3 & 2 & 3 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: Properties of the studies used in the present systematic review. Figure 1: Illustration of the review process based on the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA). As the Figure shows, overall, 1986 studies were included, and after removing the duplicate studies, 589 remained. At this stage, all the irrelevant studies were removed as these studies did not consider adult subjects with good general health or did not consider the intended clinical parameters, and 16 articles were selected for retrieval. From these articles, 11 articles were excluded because they followed up on the treatment outcomes for less than two years, and the number of implants reviewed was less than 20. Therefore, 5 studies were selected for this systemic review. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Study** & **[**25**]** & **[**31**]** & **[**32**]** & **[**33**]** & **[**34**]** \\ \hline Mean age of the & & & & & \\ patient (year) & Not stated & & & & \\ patient (year) & Not stated & & & & \\ \hline Gender & Not stated & Not stated & & & \\  & & & & & \\  & & & & & \\  & & & & & \\  & & & & & \\  & & & & & \\  & & & & & \\  & & & & & \\  & & & & & \\  & & & & & \\  & & & & & \\ \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 1: _Cont._  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
**Study** & [25] & [31] & [32] & [33] & [34] \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{Antibiotics} & Amoxicillin & \multirow{8}{*}{N/A} & \multirow{8}{*}{Decreased compared to that of baseline by 100\% at the final period of review.} & \multirow{8}{*}{Decreased compared to that of baseline by 72.2\%, 26.1\%, and -20\%, respectively, at the final period of review.} & \multirow{8}{*}{Decreased compared to that of baseline by 75\% at the final period of review.} & \multirow{8}{*}{Decreased compared to that of baseline by 75\% at the final period of review.} & \multirow{8}{*}{Decreased compared to that of baseline by 75\% at the final period of review.} & \multirow{8}{*}{Decreased compared to that of baseline by 75\% at the final and -20\%, respectively, at the final period of review.} & \multirow{8}{*}{\(\sim\)58.4\% and -63.4\%, respectively, at the final period of review.}