Data sources A search of electronic databases (EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cochrane Oral Group Trials Register and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) along with a manual search of various Science Citation Indexed journals.

Study selection Four cross-sectional studies and one case-control study were included where percentage levels of Herpes Simplex Virus Type 1 (HSV1), Epstein-Barr Virus (EBV) and Cytomegalovirus (CMV) were sampled for in both peri-implantitis affected and healthy implant sites, with the latter used as the control. Studies were excluded that investigated any other infective agent, had fewer than ten participants, was performed in vitro or involved subjects with only periodontal disease.

Data extraction and synthesis Data extraction followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guideline process. Two examiners used the Newcastle Ottawa Scale to determine overall study quality while the key information was extracted and tabulated for comparison. The data was analysed using Chi-squared test and I2 test for heterogenicity with a random effects or fixed affect models applied as appropriate. Risk difference of outcomes was displayed via a forest plot with 95% confidence intervals. Funnel plots were generated to evaluate publication bias.

Results All four cross-sectional studies searched for EBV, while three also looked for CMV. The case-control study included investigated for HSV1 presence only. EBV presence in peri-implantitis sites was found to be statistically significant in three of the four studies despite obvious heterogeneity. CMV presence at peri-implantitis sites was statistically significant in all relevant studies, but the data displayed notable heterogeneity so as to render it insignificant. HSV1 exhibited similar percentage frequency in both healthy and diseased implant sites.

Conclusions Virus prevalence was found to be increased in patients with peri-implantitis when compared to healthy sites but this assertion must be treated with caution as the data supporting it is weak due to the limited number of studies involved and the significant inherent heterogeneity they displayed.

数据源搜索电子数据库（EMBASE，MEDLINE，Cochrane口服组试验注册和对照试验的Cochrane中央注册），以及手动搜索各种《科学引文索引》期刊。

研究选择包括四项横断面研究和一项病例对照研究，其中分别对受影响的种植体周围炎和感染的1型单纯疱疹病毒（HSV1），爱泼斯坦-巴尔病毒（EBV）和巨细胞病毒（CMV）的百分比水平进行了抽样。健康的植入部位，以后者为对照。排除了研究对象少于10人，在体外进行或仅涉及牙周疾病的对象的任何其他传染源的研究。

数据提取和综合数据提取遵循“系统评价和荟萃分析的首选报告项目”（PRISMA）指南流程。两名审查员使用纽卡斯尔渥太华量表来确定总体研究质量，同时提取关键信息并制成表格进行比较。使用卡方检验和I2检验分析数据的异质性，并酌情采用随机效应或固定效应模型。结果风险差异通过具有95％置信区间的森林图显示。生成漏斗图以评估出版偏倚。

结果所有四项横断面研究均寻找EBV，而三项也寻找CMV。病例对照研究仅调查了HSV1的存在。尽管有明显的异质性，但在四项研究中的三项中，发现种植体周围部位的EBV存在统计学意义。在所有相关研究中，植入物周围炎部位的巨细胞病毒存在统计学意义，但数据显示出显着的异质性，从而使其无意义。HSV1在健康和患病的植入部位均表现出相似的百分比频率。

结论与健康部位相比，植入物周围炎患者的病毒患病率有所提高，但必须谨慎对待这一主张，因为由于涉及的研究数量有限且显示的显着固有异质性，支持病毒的数据很弱。