Antibacterial effect of Er:YAG laser in the treatment of peri-implantitis and their effect on implant surfaces: a literature review

Smeo, Khaled; Nasher, Riman; Gutknecht, Norbert

doi:10.1007/s41547-018-0043-2

Cited by 5 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 58 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The Er:YAG laser settings used in treating peri-implantitis are 100 mJ/pulse, 1 W, 10 Hz, and 12.74 J/cm 2 for 60 seconds. 64 Care should be used when using an Er:YAG laser 2940 nm wavelength to avoid adverse thermal effects on the implant surface. In a clinical study, Clem and Gunsolley 65 evaluated the effective treatment regime for peri-implantitis lesions with deep (≥ 6 mm) defects using an Er:YAG laser for implant surface decontamination, removing defect granulomatous tissues, and grafting therapy for bony defect resolution.…”

Section: Simulated Radiation Emission (Lasers)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Peri-implantitis Update: Risk Indicators, Diagnosis, and Treatment

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite the success rates of dental implants, peri-implantitis presents as the most common complication in implant dentistry. This review discusses various factors associated with peri-implantitis and various available treatments, highlighting their advantages and disadvantages. Relevant articles on peri-implantitis published in English were reviewed from August 2010 to April 2020 in MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus, and ScienceDirect. The identified risk indicators of peri-implant diseases are plaque, smoking, history of periodontitis, surface roughness, residual cement, emergence angle >30 degrees, radiation therapy, keratinized tissue width, and function time of the implant, sex, and diabetes. Peri-implantitis treatments can be divided into nonsurgical (mechanical, antiseptic, and antibiotics), surface decontamination (chemical and laser), and surgical (air powder abrasive, resective, and regenerative). However, mechanical debridement alone may fail to eliminate the causative bacteria, and this treatment should be combined with other treatments (antiseptics and surgical treatment). Surface decontamination using chemical agents may be used as an adjuvant treatment; however, the definitive clinical benefit is yet not proven. Laser treatment may result in a short-term decrease in periodontal pocket depth, while air powder abrasive is effective in cleaning a previously contaminated implant surface. Surgical elimination of a pocket, bone recontouring and plaque control are also effective for treating peri-implantitis. The current evidence indicates that regenerative approaches to treat peri-implant defects are unpredictable.

show abstract

Section: Simulated Radiation Emission (Lasers)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Peri-implantitis Update: Risk Indicators, Diagnosis, and Treatment

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Literature reviews fail to consent on preferred protocols for safe laser debridement and disinfection of contaminated dental implants. Heterogeneity in protocol, variation in included parameters, and lack of information concerning calibration of the laser equipment and measuring instruments hamper comparisons between studies (Kamel et al, 2014; Smeo et al, 2018). Most laser systems report a discrepancy between device power/energy setting and actual output power/energy.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dental implant surface temperatures following double wavelength (2780/940 nm) laser irradiation in vitro

Fahlstedt

Bunæs

Lie

et al. 2020

Clinical & Exp Dental Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To estimate the implant surface temperature at titanium dental implants during calibrated irradiation using double wavelength laser.Material and methods: A double wavelength laser, 2780 nm Er,Cr:YSGG and 940 nm diode, was calibrated and used to irradiate pristine titanium dental implants, OsseoSpeed, TiUnite and Roxolid SLActive, representing different surface modifications. Initial calibration (21 implants; 7 implants/group) intended to identify optimal wavelength/specific output power/energy that not critically increased the temperature or altered the micro-texture of the implant surface. Subsequent experimental study (30 implants; 10 implants/group) evaluated implant surface temperature changes over 190 s. Irradiation using a computerized robotic setup.Results: Based on the initial calibration, the following output powers/energies were employed: Er,Cr:YSGG laser 18.4 mJ/pulse (7.3 J/cm 2 )-36.2 mJ/pulse (14.4 J/cm 2 ) depending on implant surface; diode laser 3.3 W (1321.0 W/cm 2 ). During double wavelength irradiation, implant surface temperatures dropped over the first 20 s from baseline 37 C to mean temperatures ranging between 25.7 and 26.3 C. Differences in mean temperatures between OsseoSpeed and TiUnite implants were statistically significant (p < 0.001). After the initial 20 s, mean temperatures continued to decrease for all implant surfaces. The decrease was significantly greater for TiUnite and Roxolid SLActive compared with OsseoSpeed implants (p < 0.001). Conclusion:Calibrated double wavelength laser irradiation did not critically influence the implant surface temperature. During laser irradiation the temperature decreased rapidly to steady-state levels, close to the water/air-spray temperature.

show abstract

“…Literature reviews have failed to consent to a safe and preferred protocol for laser decontamination and how to disinfect contaminated dental implants, likely due to study design heterogeneity and lack of precisely defined laser specifications and parameters (Kamel et al, 2014 ; Smeo et al, 2018 ). Several studies investigating different parameters such as wavelength, pulse length, repetition rate of pulses, measured output fluence and intensity, light deliverance system, applied water irrigation, and time of irradiation have demonstrated an urgent need for transparent, optimized, and standardized laboratory set‐up evaluation before clinical application (Fahlstedt et al, 2020 ; Takagi et al, 2018 ; Tunér & Jenkins, 2016 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dental implant surface morphology, chemical composition, and topography following double wavelength (2780/940 nm) laser irradiation. An in vitro study

Fahlstedt

Wennerberg

Bunæs

et al. 2023

Clinical & Exp Dental Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: The aim of this in vitro study was to evaluate morphology alterations, chemical composition, and topography of moderately rough dental implants following double-wavelength laser irradiation.Material and Methods: Commercial-grade titanium dental implants representing different surface characteristics (Osseospeed [OS], TiUnite [TiU], and Roxolid SLActive [RS]) were used. Laser irradiation was performed using a computer-controlled robotic device with calibrated energy/power settings and deionized water spray. Micro-, nanomorphology surface alterations, chemical composition, and surface topography (S a , S ds , S dr ) in the test group (laser plus water), control group A (water only), and control group B (no treatment) were analyzed using scanning electron microscopy (SEM), energydispersive X-ray analysis (EDX), and white light laser profilometer (Interferometry).Results: SEM-evaluation revealed minor between-group differences in micro-and nano-morphology within each implant system. Significant overall differences in surface element content were observed between the test and control group B for all implant systems (p < .05). For the test compared with control group B, statistically significantly higher oxygen content was detected for OS and RS (p < .05), a corresponding significant difference was detected for carbon for TiU (p < .05). For RS, a significantly lower content of titanium and zirconium was detected within the test group (p < .05). A significant difference in topography between test and control group B was observed for OS (S a : p = .039 and S dr : p = .041) with the highest roughness value for control group B.Conclusions: Altered chemical composition and surface topography were observed for all implant surfaces compared with untreated control following double wavelength laser irradiation. A clinical evaluation of the impact of the altered surface composition following double wavelength laser irradiation on the ability to reosseointegrate appears warranted.

show abstract

Antibacterial effect of Er:YAG laser in the treatment of peri-implantitis and their effect on implant surfaces: a literature review

Cited by 5 publications

References 58 publications

Peri-implantitis Update: Risk Indicators, Diagnosis, and Treatment

Peri-implantitis Update: Risk Indicators, Diagnosis, and Treatment

Dental implant surface temperatures following double wavelength (2780/940 nm) laser irradiation in vitro

Dental implant surface morphology, chemical composition, and topography following double wavelength (2780/940 nm) laser irradiation. An in vitro study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About