Background: This systematic review aims to assess the current evidence on the efficacy of surgical and non-surgical debridement techniques in the treatment of peri-implantitis lesions without the use of any antimicrobials. Method: Five electronic databases (MEDLINE, Pubmed, Scopus, CINAHL and Cochrane) were used, alongside hand searches, to find relevant articles. Full-text articles that were randomised controlled trials, published in the English language from 2011 onwards without pre-operative, peri-operative and post-operative antibiotic usage were included. The study was conducted according to the latest Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA)-P protocols, the latest Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and each investigated intervention was evaluated using the grading of recommendation, assessment, development and evaluation (GRADE) system. Results: The search yielded 2718 results. After initial screening, 38 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility. From these, 11 studies satisfied all inclusion criteria. These 11 articles described six non-surgical and five surgical debridement therapies. Most articles were classified as having either a high risk of bias or presenting with some concerns. Small sample sizes, in combination with this risk of bias, meant that all interventions were adjudged to be of either low or very low quality of evidence. Conclusion: While all investigated modalities displayed some sort of efficacy, this review suggests that a surgical approach may be best suited to treating peri-implantitis lesions in the absence of antibiotic therapy. Despite this weak indication, further research is required in this field.

Objectives: To evaluate the current practice of interceptive orthodontics undertaken by general dental practitioners and identify influencing factors. Materials and methods: Printed questionnaires were provided to 200 registered Australian general dental practitioners. Participants were questioned about their current confidence, attitudes, and practice, related to interceptive orthodontics in general dentistry. Results: The decision to practise interceptive orthodontics (17.4% of respondents) was strongly dependent on the confidence of the dentist (x2 = 48.693; df = 4; p < 0.001). It was also found that the provision of interceptive orthodontics was prevented by its perceived importance (x2 = 23.559; df = 5; p < 0.001) and benefit in a general dental setting (x2 = 9.411; df = 4; p = 0.035). The provision of more education was not shown to likely increase the number of dentists performing interceptive orthodontics. Low clinician confidence in the provision of interceptive orthodontics was also shown to result in orthodontic consultation prior to performing treatment (x2 = 31.782; df = 16; p = 0.004) or referral to an orthodontist (x2 = 42.465; df = 12; p < 0.001). Conclusions: Interceptive orthodontics was not practised by most dentists. This decision was shown to be influenced by the clinicians’ confidence, further education or training, perceived importance of interceptive orthodontics and the impact that early intervention might have on future orthodontic treatment. Consideration should also be given to clarifying the orthodontic scope of practice for general dentists, in order to reduce the confusion influencing the provision of orthodontic care.