A Comparative Study Of Diode Laser (810 Nm) Against Traditional Scalpel Approach For Second-Stage Implant Surgery
Keywords:
Diode Laser (810 Nm), Scalpel Technique, Second-Stage, Implant, SurgeryAbstract
Introduction: Parallelism in the expansion of implant and laser dentistry are the same as for any other soft tissue dental procedures. Surgical lasers have been used with good results in a variety of ways in implantology, ranging from placement to second-stage surgery for exposure of the buried implant. Laser-assisted technique achieves same results as the traditional technique but with shorter timing, micro-invasiveness, and better patient compliance.
Aim: A comparative study of diode laser (810 nm) against traditional scalpel approach for second-stage implant surgery
Methods: A comparative research was carried out at the Department of Periodontology and Oral Implantology, from October 2020 to September 2021, India, with the approval of the protocol review committee and the institutional ethics committee. It was decided to only include patients who have had implants installed by our team in this research. Patients with healthy keratinized tissue around the implant site and ages ranging from 18 to 58 were included in the research.
As a part of this study, researchers recruited 30 patients who had previously had two-stage implants inserted. Patients were randomised into two groups at random and their implant sites were inspected. Those in Group A had stage II surgery with a regular knife and discovered implants. Group B: Using an 810 nm diode laser as part of stage II surgery, implants were exposed in this group. This research made use of a diode laser at 810 nm operating in continuous mode at a power of 1.5 W.
Results: All participants required the LA, with Group A requiring an average of 1.77 0.42 ml and Group B requiring an average of 0.7 0.01 ml. The statistically significant difference between Group A and Group B was determined to be 1.07 0.41 ml. The p-value must be less than 0.05. The time taken for surgery in each group was recorded in minutes, with the average for Group A being 14.33 3.98 min and the average for Group B being 9.02 2.36 min.
After a 24-hour interval, the mean pain index values in Groups A and B were 6.10.96 and 5.50.57, respectively.
The difference between the groups (after 24 hours) was statistically significant (P 0.05) when examined using an independent t-test. Group A's mean pain index score was 3.9 0.66 at 48 hours and 2.9 0.74 at 72 hours, whereas Group B's mean pain index score was 1.7 0.87 and 0.3 0.59, respectively. At a p-value of " 0.05, the difference between the groups was statistically significant at 48 and 72 hours. The Chi-square test was used to compare HI between Group A and Group B. HI categories, such as poor (Group A = 13.33 percent, Group B = 20 percent), good (Group A = 26.67 percent, Group B = 66.67 percent), very good (Group A = 46.67, Group B = 13.33), and excellent (Group A = 13.33 percent, Group B = 0) all had a P value greater than 0.05, meaning the difference between Group A and Group B was not statistically significant.
Conclusion: When doing second-stage implant surgery using a diode laser, we found that the lack of bleeding and reduced postoperative pain allowed us to perform the procedure with less stress and anaesthetic
Downloads
References
1. Maiman TH. Stimulated optical radiation in ruby. Nature, 1960; 187:493-94.
2. Snitzer E. Optical maser action of Nd (+3) in a barium crown glass. Phys Rev Lett, 1961; 7:444-46
3. Goldman L, Hornby P, Meyer R, Goldman B. Impact of the laser on the dental caries. Nature, 1964; 203:417.
4. Stern RH, Sognnaes RF. Laser inhibition of dental caries suggested by first tests in vivo. J Am Dent Assoc, 1972;85:1087-90.
5. Aoki A, Mizutani K, Schwarz F, Sculean A, Yukna RA, Takasaki AA, et al. Periodontal and peri-implant wound healing following laser therapy. Periodontol 2000. 2015;68:217–69.
6. Pang P, Andreana S, Aoki A. Laser energy in oral soft tissue applications. J Laser Dent. 2010;18:123–31.
7. Prabhuji ML, Madhupreetha S, Archana V. Treatment of gingival hyperpigmentation for aesthetic purposes using the diode laser. Int Mag Laser Dent. 2011;3:18-9
8. Breivik H, Borchgrevink PC, Allen SM, Rosseland LA, Romundstad L, Hals EK, et al. Assessment of pain. Br J Anaesth. 2008;101:17-24.
9. Landry RG, Turnbull RS, Howley T. Effectiveness of benzydamine HCl in the treatment of periodontal postsurgical patients. Res Clin Forum. 1988;10:105-18
10. El-Kholey KE. Efficacy and safety of a diode laser in second-stage implant surgery: A comparative study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2014;43:633–8.
11. Wigdor HA, Walsh JT Jr, Featherstone JD, Visuri SR, Fried D, Waldvogel JL. Lasers in dentistry. Lasers Surg Med 1995;16:103‑33.
12. Bader HI. Use of lasers in periodontics. Dent Clin North Am 2000;44:779-91.
13. Schwarz F, Aoki A, Sculean A, Becker J. The impact of laser application on periodontal and peri-implant wound healing. Periodontol 2000 2009;51:79-108.
14. Desiate A, Cantore S, Tullo D, Profeta G, Grassi FR, Ballini A. 980 nm diode lasers in oral and facial practice: Current state of the science and art. Int J Med Sci 2009;6:358-64.
15. Miller RJ. Lasers in oral implantology. Dental Pract. 2006:112-4.
16. Gianfranco S, Francesco SE, Paul RJ. Erbium and diode lasers for operculisation in the second phase of implant surgery: A case series. Timisoara Med J. 2010;60:117-23.
17. Arnabat-Domínguez J, España-Tost AJ, Berini-Aytés L, Gay-Escoda C. Erbium: YAG laser application in the second phase of implant surgery: A pilot study in 20 patients. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2003;18:104-12.
18. Arnabat-Domínguez J, Bragado-Novel M, España-Tost AJ, Berini-Aytés L, Gay-Escoda C. Advantages and esthetic results of erbium, chromium: yttrium-scandium-gallium-garnet laser application in second-stage implant surgery in patients with insufficient gingival attachment: A report of three cases. Lasers Med Sci. 2010;25:459-64.
19. Shalawe W, Ibrahim Z, Sulaiman A. Clinical comparison between diode laser and scalpel incisions in oral soft tissue biopsy. Al Rafidain Dent J. 2012;12:337-43.
20. Kara C. Evaluation of patient perceptions of frenectomy: A comparison of Nd: YAG laser and conventional techniques. Photomed Laser Surg 2008;26:147-52
21. Haytac MC, Ozcelik O. Evaluation of patient perceptions after frenectomy operations: A comparison of carbon dioxide laser and scalpel techniques. J Periodontol 2006;77:1815-9.
22. Jin JY, Lee SH, Yoon HJ. A comparative study of wound healing following incision with a scalpel, diode laser or Er, Cr: YSGG laser in guinea pig oral mucosa: A histological and immunohistochemical analysis. Acta Odontol Scand. 2010;68:232-8
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
You are free to:
- Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
- Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
Terms:
- Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
- No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
