Aim: The aim is to compare the clinical efficacy of diode laser and erbium, chromium-doped yttrium, scandium, gallium, and garnet (Er, Cr:YSGG) laser for implant stage 2 recovery procedure. Materials and Methods: A total of 30 patients who had undergone dental implant placement were included in this study. The subjects were randomly allocated into three groups. Group 1 patients ( n = 10) had implant recovery using diode laser, Group 2 ( n = 10) implant recovery with Er, Cr:YSGG and conventional scalpel method ( n = 10) was the third group. The pain assessment was recorded using visual analog scale (VAS scale), time taken for the procedure, intra-operative bleeding, time taken for healing were recorded for the three groups. Results: Data were tabulated and the results were analyzed using SPSS software version 26. Mann–Whitney U-test was used to compare the postoperative analgesic used, postoperative VAS score, the time taken for recovery and time taken for healing between the three study groups. Results were considered to be statistically significant when P < 0.05. Operation duration under Er, Cr:YSGG were much faster than the diode laser, however the results were not statistically significant ( P = 0.051). The operation time under Er, Ch: YSGG and laser were faster than the conventional scalpel group ( P = 0.000). The time taken for healing was faster in the Er, Cr:YSGG laser group than the diode laser and the scalpel group ( P = 0.000). VAS scale at day 0 was higher in the conventional group than the two laser groups ( P = 0.000). Conclusion: Considering the advantages of both these laser systems such as less anesthesia, less surgical trauma and faster healing, and post-operative comfort, lasers are an effective tool for implant stage two recovery techniques. However, since diode lasers are more cost effective when compared to Er, Cr:YSGG, diode lasers may meet the clinical needs when compared to hard-tissue lasers.
BACKGROUND Peri-implantitis is an inflammatory reaction surrounding the hard and soft tissues of the implant that is functional in the patient's mouth. If left untreated, this might lead to further bone loss, loosening of the implant and the ultimate failure of the implant. There are many treatment modalities that have been suggested to treat periimplantitis, but there are no set guidelines or protocols for the same. Implantoplasty seems to be a viable option for treating peri-implantitis, as it involves the smoothening of the macro geometry of the supracrestal exposed implant surface thus reducing the plaque accumulation and ultimately preventing the bacterial recolonization and preventing the implant from failure. This study was done to evaluate the smoothness and the fracture resistance of the implants treated by implantoplasty and as an effective treatment for peri-implantitis. METHODS This in-vitro study was done on 5 failed implants, in which 4 were subjected to a sequence of dental burs and prophy paste and 1 implant was kept as a control. They were subjected to laser topography analysis to determine the smoothness after implantoplasty, and their fracture resistance was also checked in Instron. RESULTS Implant no. 4 subjected to both dental burs and prophy paste was considered to be the smoothest with the laser topography of 2.049 mm compared to the control that was 3.132 mm. Also, the fracture resistance between the implants and the control was similar. CONCLUSIONS In conclusion implantoplasty is a suggested treatment option for patients with periimplantitis keeping in mind the practical difficulties of the procedure. KEY WORDS Peri-Implantitis, Implantoplasty, Dental Burs, Surface Analysis
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.