Clinical effect of diode laser on peri-implant tissues during non-surgical peri-implant mucositis therapy: Randomized controlled clinical study

Comparison of the antibacterial efficacy of 810 nm diode laser and photodynamic therapy in reducing microbial flora in patients with peri-implant mucositis - An in vivo study

AIM

The aim of this study was to investigate and compare the antimicrobial effects of an 810-nanometer diode laser, utilizing or not utilizing toluidine blue as a photosensitizer, in the management of peri-implant mucositis.

SETTINGS AND DESIGN

The present study was carried out in 30 implant sites in 15 patients with peri-implant mucositis with a specific inclusion and exclusion criteria. 15 sites were treated utilizing a diode laser (control group) and 15 with photodynamic therapy (test group) in a split-mouth format.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Samples were taken from the gingival sulcus with the help of plastic curettes from control and test sites both at baseline and at 3 months for microbiological analysis.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED

Shapiro-Wilk Test was used to check deviation from normality. Wilcoxon signed-rank test was used to analyse the two dependent groups.

RESULTS

Intragroup comparison was found to be statistically significant when compared at baseline and at 3 months in the photodynamic (P = 0.001) and diode laser groups (P = 0.001), respectively. No statistically significant reduction in bacterial count was found at baseline (P = 0.1) and at 3 months (P = 0.5) when the diode laser group and photodynamic group were compared with each other (intergroup).

CONCLUSION

Within the limitations of the study, it can be concluded that there is a definitive reduction in pathogenic bacteria with both interventions and PDT offers clinically visible benefits in the treatment of peri-implant mucositis.

The Efficacy of Ten Different Adjunctive Measures in Patients with Nonsurgically Treated Peri-Implant Disease: A Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the impact of 10 adjunctive measures on non-surgical therapy outcomes for peri-implant disease. Methods: We formulated the study question and keywords following the Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome framework. Randomized controlled trials were identified through searches in PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and the Web of Science. Two researchers assessed the quality of included literature according to the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool. Data analysis and ranking were performed using Stata 15.0 software. Results: This study, involving 51 pieces of literature and 2660 samples, conducted a network meta-analysis (NMA), which revealed that photodynamic therapy (PDT) significantly reduced probing pocket depth values in patients with peri-implant mucositis (SUCRA = 96.3%) and peri-implantitis (SUCRA = 96.7%). In addition, it showed an improvement in bleeding on probing (BOP) values for peri-implantitis (SUCRA = 91.6%). Furthermore, diode lasers improved BOP values for peri-implant mucositis (SUCRA = 76.5%). Conclusions: According to the NMA results and the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA), PDT and diode laser outperform other adjuncts in peri-implant disease.

Evaluation of the adjunctive use of Er:YAG laser or erythritol powder air-polishing in the treatment of peri-implant mucositis: A randomized clinical trial

AIM

To assess the efficacy of Er:YAG laser (ERL) and erythritol powder air-polishing (AP) in addition to the submarginal instrumentation in the non-surgical treatment of peri-implant mucositis (PM).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Patients with at least one implant diagnosed with PM were included in the present 6-month randomized clinical trial (RCT). Implants were randomly assigned to one of the three treatment groups after submarginal instrumentation: AP (test 1 group), ERL (test 2 group) or no adjunctive methods (control group). The primary and secondary outcomes were, respectively, bleeding on probing (BoP) reduction and, complete disease resolution (total absence of BoP) and probing pocket depth (PPD) changes. The patient and the implant were considered the statistical unit. A multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed.

RESULTS

A total of 75 patients were enrolled in the study. At each time point, significant BoP and PPD reductions were observed within each group. Intergroup analysis did not show statistically significant differences. Complete disease resolution ranged between 29% and 31%. The logistic regression showed that supramucosal restoration margin, PPD < 4 mm and vestibular keratinized mucosa (KM) significantly influenced the probability to obtain treatment success.

CONCLUSION

The adjunctive use of AP and ERL in PM non-surgical therapy does not seem to provide any significant or clinically relevant benefit in terms of BoP and PPD reductions and complete disease resolution, over the use of submarginal instrumentation alone. Baseline PPD < 4 mm, presence of buccal KM and supramucosal restoration margin may play a role in the complete resolution of PM.

Evaluation of the effectiveness of diode laser therapy in conjunction with nonsurgical treatment of peri-implantitis

PURPOSE

Peri-implantitis (PI) is an inflammatory condition associated with the destruction of bone tissue around a dental implant, and diode lasers can be used to treat this disease. In this study, we aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of a 940-nm diode laser for the nonsurgical treatment of PI.

METHODS

Twenty patients (8 women and 12 men) were enrolled in a split-mouth randomized controlled study. In the control group (CG), mechanical debridement with titanium curettes accompanied by airflow was performed around the implants. The test group (TG) was treated similarly, but with the use of a diode laser. Clinical measurements (plaque index, gingival index [GI], probing pocket depth [PPD], bleeding on probing [BOP], clinical attachment level, and interleukin-1β [IL-1β] in the peri-implant crevicular fluid) were evaluated and recorded at baseline and 3 months. IL-1β levels were determined using the enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay method.

RESULTS

The symptoms were alleviated in both groups at 3 months as assessed through clinical measurements. GI, BOP, and PPD were significantly lower in the TG than in the CG (P<0.05). The IL-1β level increased post-treatment in both groups, but this increase was only statistically significant (P<0.05) in the CG.

CONCLUSIONS

The diode laser enabled improvements in clinical parameters in the peri-implant tissue. However, it did not reduce IL-1β levels after treatment. Further studies about the use of diode lasers in the treatment of PI will be necessary to evaluate the effects of diode lasers in PI treatment.

Comparison of Photothermal and Photodynamic Diode Laser Therapy in Patients with Peri-implant Mucositis: A Systematic Review

Background

To determine whether photodynamic laser therapy or photothermal laser therapy demonstrates greater improvements in the clinical signs of peri-implant mucositis as an adjuvant to mechanical debridement.

Material and Methods

Electronic databases were used to select articles on February 10th, 2022. The clinical outcomes analysed were the plaque index (PI), probing depth (PD) and bleeding of probing index (BoP). The following PICO question was formulated: Among patients with peri-implant mucositis, does photothermal laser therapy (PT) demonstrate greater improvement in clinical inflammatory signs in comparison to antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) as an adjuvant to conventional therapy?

Results

Seven randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included in the systematic review. The clinical parameters were compared amongst all studies at baseline and 3-month follow-up appointment. aPDT reduced both PI and PD great than PT. PT showed greater reductions in BoP.

Conclusions

Conclusions are difficult to generalize due to the heterogeneity in the methodology of the included studies. However, this systematic review suggests that aPDT alongside mechanical debridement demonstrated greater improvements in the PI and PD. Other factors besides the laser therapy itself may account for these findings. As for BoP index, PT demonstrated greater improvements due to its photo-biomodulating effects. Clinical Relevance: In patients with peri-implant mucositis, the combination of photothermal diode laser therapy and mechanical debridement entails promising results in treating and preventing the progression of the pathology. Key words:Peri-implant mucositis, Photothermal diode laser therapy, Photodynamic diode laser therapy, Bleeding on probing.

Clinical and Radiographic Outcomes of Adjunctive Photodynamic Therapy for Treating Peri-Implant Mucositis Among Cigarette Smokers and Diabetics: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Objective: This systematic review aimed to assess the influence of antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) as an adjunct to mechanical debridement (MD) on peri-implant clinical and radiographic outcomes among cigarette smokers and diabetics with peri-implant mucositis (piM). Methods: Randomized controlled trials, assessing the clinical and radiographic parameters of aPDT versus MD alone among smokers and diabetics with piM, were included in the study. Meta-analyses were conducted to calculate the standard mean difference with a 95% confidence interval. The methodological quality of the included studies was assessed utilizing the modified Jadad quality scale. Results: The meta-analyses found statistically significant differences between the impact of adjunct aPDT and MD alone on the peri-implant plaque index (PI), probing depth (PD), and bleeding on probing among smokers and diabetics with piM at the final follow-up visit. However, no significant differences were found between the impact of adjunct aPDT and MD alone on the peri-implant crestal bone loss among smokers and diabetics with piM at the final follow-up. Conclusions: The application of aPDT as an adjunctive to MD demonstrated improved scores of the peri-implant clinical parameters among smokers and diabetics with piM in comparison with MD alone.

Diode Laser as an Adjunctive Treatment for Peri-implant Mucositis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

The early detection and management of peri-implant mucositis may help in reducing inflammatory parameters and arrest disease progression to peri-implantitis. The potential therapeutic benefits of different adjunctive therapies, such as the diode laser, are still not completely understood. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analyses was to assess the outcomes of using diode laser on the management of peri-implant mucositis in terms of changes in periodontal parameters. Electronic databases were searched to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared the combined use of mechanical debridement and diode laser with mechanical debridement alone. A specific risk-of-bias tool was used to assess the risk of bias. Data were analysed using a statistical software programme. In total, 149 studies were found. A meta-analysis of 3 RCTs showed no statistically significant differences in probing pocket depths (mean difference [MD], -0.36; 95% confidence interval [CI], -0.88 to 0.16; P = .18) or bleeding on probing (MD, -0.71; 95% CI, 1.58-0.16; P = .11) between the 2 groups at 3 months. In the management of peri-implant mucositis, the combined use of diode laser and mechanical debridement did not provide any additional clinical advantage over mechanical debridement alone. Long-term, well-designed RCTs are still needed.

A comparative evaluation of lasers and photodynamic therapy in the nonsurgical treatment of peri-implant diseases: A Bayesian network meta-analysis

PURPOSE

We conducted this Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) to evaluate the safety and efficacy of different lasers and PDT compared to conventional mechanical debridement (CMD) for peri-implant treatment.

METHODS

The Web of Science, Cochrane Library and PubMed databases were searched for randomized clinical trials (RCTs) assessing the clinical effectiveness of adjunctive PDT, different lasers, and CMD until January 1st, 2022. Clinical outcomes were the changes in pocket probing depth (PPD), marginal bone loss (MBL), and clinical attachment level (CAL).

RESULTS

Twenty-three studies, including 4 types of lasers, were included. Compared to that with CMD alone, PPD reduction was significantly more efficient in the diode laser (LD)+CMD groups (MD, 0.53; 95%CI, 0.13-0.93) and the PDT+CMD groups (MD, 0.83; 95%CI, 0.32-1.34) than in the CMD group in the follow-up period. Moreover, PDT+CMD treatment also showed a significantly better marginal bone level gain (MD, 0.32; 95%CI, 0.06-0.57). No significant effect on ΔCAL was observed among the different treatment strategies. Despite no differences in PPD reduction, MBL and CAL gains were found among the adjunctive laser treatment groups, PDT+CMD had the highest ranking probability of the most effective treatment in these clinical indices of periodontitis. The certainty of evidence for all outcomes was judged as very low to moderate.

CONCLUSIONS

Within the limits of this NMA, we found that adjunctive PDT achieved a small additional benefit on PPD reduction and MBL gain compared with CMD alone and had the highest probability of being ranked first on the changes in PPD, MBL and CAL. PDT+CMD may represent an alternative method for peri‑implant treatment. Further high-quality RCTs are needed to assess the influence of potential confounders on the efficacy of lasers and PDT.

The effectiveness of adjunctive measures in managing peri-implant mucositis: an umbrella review

OBJECTIVES

The purpose of this umbrella review was to gather and summarize the data from published systematic reviews (SRs) that compared non-surgical mechanical debridement (NSMD) with and without the use of adjunctive treatments on the management of peri-implant mucositis (PIM).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A protocol was developed and registered in PROSPERO (CRD42021254350) before the systematic search for the SRs. Seven electronic databases, including Cochrane Library, Embase (via Ovid), MEDLINE (via Pubmed), Proquest, Prospero, Scopus and Web of Science, were searched for published reviews. The search for unpublished and informally published reviews was further attempted in the last four databases. The methodological quality of the included reviews was assessed using AMSTAR 2.

RESULTS

Twelve included SRs assessed clinical studies published between 2014 and 2020, including a total of seventeen primary clinical trials. All SRs summarized data from individual studies and provided a narrative conclusion regarding the effectiveness of the adjunctive treatments. Only six SRs performed a meta-analysis (MA) of additional benefits of the adjunctive therapy for PIM, with results indicating no significant difference between the different treatment modalities. The overall confidence was adjudged ranging from critically low to low using AMSTAR 2 and significant additional benefits of any adjunctive treatments in comparison with NSMD were not apparent.

CONCLUSION

Overall, the reviewed evidence did not support the use of adjunctive treatments for improvement of clinical outcomes in PM management as compared to NSMD alone.

Evaluation of Adjuvant Systems in Non-Surgical Peri-Implant Treatment: A Literature Review

Can the use of lasers, ozone, probiotics, glycine and/or erythritol, and chlorhexidine in combination with non-surgical peri-implant treatment have additional beneficial effects on the clinical parameters? Objectives: The non-surgical treatment of peri-implant pathologies is based on mechanical debridement to eliminate bacterial biofilm and reduce tissue inflammation; some additional therapies have been studied to achieve more detailed clinical results. Materials and methods: A literature search for publications until January 2022 was conducted. The research question is formulated following the Problem, Intervention, Comparison/Control, and Outcome. Studies investigating adjunctive therapies were included. Results: In total, 29 articles were included. Most of the studies did not show any additional benefit of these therapies in the evaluation of bleeding on probing, probing pocket depth, or plaque index; among the proposed treatments, the use of laser was the one most studied in the literature, with the achievement of a reduction of bleeding and pocket depth. More studies would be needed to assess the benefit of other therapies. Conclusions: This review showed no significant improvements in the state of health in support of mechanical debridement therapy. However, the few benefits found would deserve to be considered in new clinical studies.

Evaluation of Adjuvant Systems in Non-Surgical Peri-Implant Treatment: A Literature Review

Can the use of lasers, ozone, probiotics, glycine and/or erythritol, and chlorhexidine in combination with non-surgical peri-implant treatment have additional beneficial effects on the clinical parameters? Objectives: The non-surgical treatment of peri-implant pathologies is based on mechanical debridement to eliminate bacterial biofilm and reduce tissue inflammation; some additional therapies have been studied to achieve more detailed clinical results. Materials and methods: A literature search for publications until January 2022 was conducted. The research question is formulated following the Problem, Intervention, Comparison/Control, and Outcome. Studies investigating adjunctive therapies were included. Results: In total, 29 articles were included. Most of the studies did not show any additional benefit of these therapies in the evaluation of bleeding on probing, probing pocket depth, or plaque index; among the proposed treatments, the use of laser was the one most studied in the literature, with the achievement of a reduction of bleeding and pocket depth. More studies would be needed to assess the benefit of other therapies. Conclusions: This review showed no significant improvements in the state of health in support of mechanical debridement therapy. However, the few benefits found would deserve to be considered in new clinical studies.

The diode laser as coadyuvant therapy in the non-surgical conventional treatment of peri-implant mucositis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background

The present study systematically reviewed randomized controlled trials (RCT) to investigate the effect of diode laser therapy in the management of peri-implant mucositis.

Material and Methods

The electronic databases were searched until January 2020. Outcome measures were bleeding on probing (BOP), plaque index (PI) and probing depth (PD). The addressed PICO question was: Is the diode laser therapy effective reducing the signs of inflammation as an adjunctive element in the non-surgical treatment of peri-implant mucositis?.

Results

Eight randomized clinical trials (RCTs) were included in the systematic review for qualitative synthesis and three in the meta-analysis for quantitative synthesis. All studies included in the quantitative synthesis have low risk of bias according to the Cochrane collaborations’ tool. Diode laser as coadyuvant therapy significantly reduced plaque index (SMD: -1.24; -0.47/-1.53) but not in bleeding on probing (SMD: -0.84; -0.31/-1.53) or probing pocket depth (SMD: -1.36; -0.28/-1.69). Non-statistically significant reductions in peri-implant bleeding on probing and in probing pocket depth were also observed in the test groups of most studies included in the meta-analysis.

Conclusions

The results should be interpreted cautiously due to the great heterogeneity in the methodology of the studies included in the systematic review. However the meta-analysis suggests that the use of diode lasers, as an adjunct in conventional non-surgical treatment of peri-implant mucositis, is promising in reducing the clinical signs of peri-implant mucositis, especially reducing the perii-implant plaque index.

Key words:Peri-implant diseases, peri-implant mucositis, laser therapy, diode laser.

Effect of a Er, Cr:YSGG laser and a Er:YAG laser treatment on oral biofilm-contaminated titanium

OBJECTIVE

Implant surface decontamination is a challenging procedure for therapy of peri-implant disease. This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of decontamination on oral biofilm-contaminated titanium surfaces in Er:YAG laser, Er, Cr:YSGG laser, and plastic curette.

METHODOLOGY

For oral biofilms formation, six participants wore an acrylic splint with eight titanium discs in the maxillary arch for 72 hours. A total of 48 contaminated discs were distributed among four groups: untreated control; decontamination with plastic curettes; Er, Cr:YSGG laser; and Er:YAG laser irradiation. Complete plaque removal was estimated using naked-eye and the time taken was recorded; the residual plaque area was measured and the morphological alteration of the specimen surface was observed by scanning electron microscopy. The total bacterial load and the viability of adherent bacteria were quantified by live or dead cell labeling with fluorescence microscopy.

RESULTS

The mean treatment time significantly decreased based on the treatment used in the following order: Er:YAG, Er, Cr:YSGG laser, and plastic curettes (234.9±25.4 sec, 156.1±12.7 sec, and 126.4±18.6 sec, P=0.000). The mean RPA in the Er, Cr:YSGG laser group (7.0±2.5%) was lower than Er:YAG and plastic curettes groups (10.3±2.4%, 12.3±3.6%, p=0.023). The viable bacteria on the titanium surface after Er, Cr:YSGG laser irradiation was significantly lower compared to the decontamination with plastic curette (P=0.05) but it was not significantly different from the Er:YAG laser irradiation.

CONCLUSION

We found that Er:YAG laser and Er, Cr:YSGG laser irradiation were effective methods for decontaminations without surface alterations.

Efficacy of different lasers of various wavelengths in treatment of peri-implantitis and peri-implant mucositis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Aim

Peri implant diseases lead to pathological changes in the peri implant tissues and loss of osseointegration. The purpose of this analysis is to evaluate the effect of various lasers and photodynamic therapy (PDT) on peri implant diseases compared to conventional procedures.

Setting and Design

This meta analysis was conducted as per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta Analyses guidelines.

Materials and Methods

A systematic search of the electronic databases such as PubMed, ICTRP, CT.gov, Embase, and Cochrane Library was done additional to manual search of peer review article on peri-implant diseases. Eleven randomized control clinical trials were included in which laser therapy and PDT were used as an interventional procedure.

Results and Statistical Analysis Used

Review Manager 5.03 (RevMan, Nordic Cochrane Center, Copenhagen, Denmark), and random effects model were used to assess mean difference (MD). Bivariate differential mean statistic was used in intergroup estimate with 95% confidence interval (CI). I2 test statistics was applied for heterogenity and P < 0.05 was considered significant statistically. The literature search yielded a total of 113 articles among which 11 articles were included for quantitative analysis. The selected outcome PD reported MD -0.01 with 95% CI (-0.13, 0.16), P = 0.84, and CAL reported MD -0.09 with 95% CI (-0.32, 0.14), P = 0.45, respectively.

Conclusion

Laser treatment as an adjunctive therapy or monotherapy in peri implantitis does not show any superior effects than conventional measures as per evidence. However, cases with peri implant mucositis have shown far more promising results with laser therapy compared to peri implantitis.

Assessment of safety and efficacy of antimicrobial photodynamic therapy for peri-implant disease

BACKGROUND

There is no reliable treatment procedure for peri-implant disease, despite the rise in its incidence. This study sought to evaluate the short-term safety and efficacy of antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (a-PDT) on peri-implantitis by assessing the volume of pus discharge after a-PDT.

METHODS

Patients with pus discharge from a peri-implant pocket were recruited from December 1st, 2019 to April 30th, 2020. The enrolled implants were randomly assigned to one of two groups, the irrigation and a-PDT groups. Their peri-implant pocket was irrigated with normal saline in the irrigation group, and a saline irrigation and subsequent a-PDT with toluidine blue (TB) was performed in the a-PDT group. The safety and efficacy of a-PDT were assessed 7 days after treatment.

RESULTS

Twenty-five implants in 21 patients (irrigation group; 13 implants, a-PDT group; 12 implants) were registered. No complication was observed after a-PDT. Pus discharge was decreased in 7 of 12 implants (58.3 %) in the a-PDT group, and in 2 of 13 implants (15.4 %) in the irrigation group. According to Fisher's exact test, a-PDT resulted in a statistically significant decrease in pus discharge compared to irrigation alone (p = 0.0414).

CONCLUSIONS

a-PDT was confirmed to be a safe treatment for peri-implantitis, and the short-term efficacy of a-PDT with TB on peri-implantitis was clarified. Nevertheless, its efficacy remains restricted, and a new combination therapy of a-PDT and decontamination procedures is expected to be developed in future.

Nonsurgical Treatment of Peri-Implantitis: Case Series

Peri-implantitis is one of the most important biological complication of dental implants. It has inflammatory nature, proved association with plaque accumulation in peri-implant tissues, and can be progressive on background of several factors, like comorbidity factors and bad habits. The prophylaxis and different methods of treatment were discussed during last 30 years, and surgical and nonsurgical techniques have their foes, benefits, and disadvantages. In this article, we describe the case series of various nonsurgical treatments of peri-implantitis with the use of protocols based on the application of local antibiotics (doxycycline, lincomycin, and erythromycin), mechanical and chemical debridement of dental implant surface, and mini-invasive regenerative technique with injections of bovine collagen. All these three cases demonstrated good results with the maintenance of bone level and absence of clinical signs of inflammation for at least a year according to the X-ray imaging (bone defect volume) and clinic assessments (probing depth, bleeding or suppuration, mucosa color, and pain presence).

Adjunctive Use of Lasers in Peri-Implant Mucositis and Peri-Implantitis Treatment: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

The aim of this systematic review is to compare the effectiveness of lasers in the treatment of implant mucositis and peri-implantitis compared to conventional treatment (non-surgical or surgical: resective or regenerative).

METHODS

Sources of PubMed, Cochrane and Google Scholar search engines were used on articles published from 1997 to 2020 in English, with selected keyword criteria applied. Nine randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were selected.

RESULTS

All included studies were considered of "high quality" according to the quality assessment scale. The comparative assessment of the RCTs was done twice for each RCT based on the type of treatment and according to wavelength. There is strong scientific evidence that, regarding non-surgical treatment, adjunct laser application can provide better results only in the short term (three months). Regarding the surgical approach, the method of decontamination plays a subordinate role. All wavelengths/applications presented similar results.

CONCLUSION

Within the limitations of this study, the adjunctive use of lasers in the treatment of peri-implant inflammation is effective for up to three months; there is no strong evidence regarding the long term benefit compared to conventional treatment.

Evaluation of adjunctive efficacy of diode laser in the treatment of peri-implant mucositis: a randomized clinical trial

Peri-implant disease may affect survival of dental implants. The aim of the study is to analyze the effectiveness of diode laser as a supportive modality to the non-surgical conventional treatment of peri-implant mucositis (PiM) and initial peri-implantitis (PI). Twenty-three patients with single implants suffering from PiM or initial PI were selected and randomly divided into two groups; control group (CG) received non-surgical conventional treatment, and test group (TG) received non-surgical conventional treatment and diode laser application with wavelength of 980 nm. Probing pocket depth (PPD) and bleeding on probing (BOP) were recorded at baseline (T0) and at 3 months follow-up (T1). The average of PPD value for TG was 4.04 ± 0.54 mm at T0 and it was 2.98 ± 0.70 mm at T1. In the CG, PPD average was 3.8 ± 1.24 mm at T0 and was 3.54 ± 0.35 mm at T1. In TG, the BOP was positive in 44 sites at T0 and in 6 sites at T1. In CG, the BOP was positively observed in 52 sites at T0 and in 28 sites at T1. The 980-nm diode laser may be considered an adjunct to the conventional non-surgical treatments of PiM and initial PI.

One-year clinical outcomes following non-surgical treatment of peri-implant mucositis with adjunctive diode laser application

BACKGROUND

Limited information is available on the application of diode laser in the treatment of peri-implant diseases. The aim of this study was to investigate the clinical efficacy of the adjunctive application of diode laser in the non-surgical treatment of peri-implant mucositis during a 12-month follow-up period.

METHODS

The sample was composed of 73 systemically healthy patients with one implant diagnosed with peri-implant mucositis (bleeding on probing [BoP] with no loss of supporting bone). Implants were randomly assigned to mechanical debridement with hand and powered instruments and 980-nm diode laser application (test group, N.=38) or mechanical debridement alone (control group, N.=35). At the completion of active treatment patients were included in a periodontal maintenance program. Recalls were provided every three months in both treatment groups for reinforcement in oral hygiene instructions and professional implant cleaning with rubber cups. Baseline parameters were repeated at 3 and 12 months postoperatively.

RESULTS

Intragroup analysis showed that plaque index, BoP and probing depth presented statistically significant improvements when compared with baseline values (all P<0.001). No statistically significant difference in clinical outcomes was observed between treatment groups at each time point. At 12 months no significant difference in the percentage of sites showing BoP resolution was observed between test (60.9%) and control treatment (52.6%), as well.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the present results, the adjunct use of diode laser showed little but not statistically significant additional benefits in the treatment of peri-implant mucositis after an observation period of one year.