The stability of implants and microbiological effects following photobiomodulation therapy with one‐stage placement: A randomized, controlled, single‐blinded, and split‐mouth clinical study

Abstract

Background Studies have reported a positive effect on bone healing and the elimination of microorganisms placed on the titanium implants, while others have not confirmed the positive photobiomodulation therapy (PBMT) effects on bone regeneration and bone structure around the implants. Purpose The aim of the present study was to address the following questions: Does PBMT improve implant stability and affect microbiota around dental implants in the early stage of osseointegration? Materials and Methods This study was designed as randomized‐controlled prospective, split mouth, single‐blinded clinical trial. Implants were randomly divided into two groups and implants placed in the test group were treated with Gallium‐aluminum‐arsenide (GaAlAs) diode laser with PBMT immediately after surgery and for 15 days (n = 47). In the control group, implants were not irradiated(n = 46). The primary stability of the implants was measured by the Resonance frequency analysis (RFA) after insertion and the secondary stability values were recorded at 30th, 60th, and 90th days after surgery as implant stability quotient (ISQ). The hand‐held RFA was held perpendicular to the jaw line as indicated by the manufacturer for buccal‐lingual (BL), mesial‐distal (MD), and lingual‐buccal (LB) measurement and different measurements were analyzed as separately. Results Significantly higher magnetic RFA values were achieved on the 90th day in all measurement sides for both groups. ISQ levels in groups at baseline and the day‐30, 60, and 90. ISQ readings were not statistically significant between test and control groups for each time point. A statistically significant increase in ISQ reading for BL, MD, and LB dimensions in both groups was noted from baseline to the day‐90 (P < .05). Conclusion It was concluded that PBMT did not have a clinically significant effect on implant stabilization, especially in terms of ISQ values at early alveolar bone healing term. Clinical trial number is NCT04495335.

Photobiomodulation in dental implant stability and post‐surgical healing and inflammation. A randomised double‐blind study

“…This better inflammatory and healing response with the application of PBM seems to be related to possible antimicrobial effects, thus in the study by Bozkaya et al, the PBM+ group presents a significant reduction in the level of periodontal pathogenic bacteria when compared to the PBM− group (Bozkaya et al, 2021).…”

“…The absence of a specific PBM protocol has been already highlighted by several authors as a problem (Bozkaya et al, 2021;Khadra et al, 2005;Qu et al, 2022;Woodruff et al, 2004). This is due, among other factors, to the heterogeneity of the characteristics and parameters of the laser devices available on the market (Khadra et al, 2005;Lima et al, 2020).…”

“…Although, other clinical studies have not been able to demonstrate differences in the levels of stability of dental implants (Bozkaya et al, 2021;Mandić et al, 2015) or orthodontic mini-implants (Marañón-Vásquez et al, 2019) between the laser group and the control group, it is important to highlight the great differences between the few existing controlled clinical studies. For example, in the study by Lobato et al (2020), the implants were placed in fresh sockets, which creates a situation of healing and primary stability very different from that of implants placed in healed sites, as in the study by Kinalski et al (2021).…”

“…I G U R E 2 Clinical aspect of theLandry et al healing index (HI), where 0 indicates poor healing and 5 indicates excellent healing other studies with the similar monitoring time(Bozkaya et al, 2021;García-Morales et al, 2012;Lopes et al, 2005;Mandić et al, 2015;Torkzaban et al, 2018).The inflammation and healing responses obtained for the PBM+ group in the objective assessment and HI were considerably better than those obtained for the PBM− group. 65% of the PBM+ group's implants did not present with any subjective inflammation, and 45% of the same group attained the maximum score in the HI scale.…”

Impact of abutment geometry on early implant marginal bone loss. A double‐blind, randomized, 6‐month clinical trial

“…Alongside the different techniques that are used to minimize or prevent MBL, a range of strategies have also been proposed, which include modifications to the drilling protocol (undersized drilling, osteocondensation [Stocchero et al, 2016]), platform switching (Atieh et al, 2010), immediate or early loading (Chen et al, 2019), and the intraoperative application of photobiomodulation (Bozkaya et al, 2021). However, despite their importance in terms of the mucointegration of peri‐implant tissues, other aspects related to prosthetic attachments have not been as widely studied.…”