Introduction. Various procedures in dental implantology are performed to enhance the bone healing process and implant stability. One of these methods can be a low-level laser therapy (LLLT).Objectives. The aim of our study was to evaluate the stabilization (primary and secondary) and bone density in peri-implant zone after LLLT protocol using a 635 nm diode laser.Material and Methods. The research included 40 implants placed in the posterior region of a mandible in 24 patients (8 women and 16 man; age: 46.7 ± 8.7 years). The patients were randomly divided into 2 groups G1 (n=12, 18 implants) and G2 (n=12, 22 implants) according to the treatment procedure; G1 (test): 635 nm laser, with handpiece diameter: 8mm, output power: 100mW, spot area: 0.5024cm2, average power density: 199.04mW/cm2, continuous mode, dose: 4J per point (8J/cm2), time: 40 sec per point, 2 points (irradiation on a buccal and a lingual side of the alveolus/implant), and total energy per session 8J; G2 (control): no laser irradiation. The G1 (test) group’s implants were irradiated according to the following protocol: 1 day before surgery, immediately after the surgery and 2, 4, 7, and 14 days after. The total energy after all therapeutic sessions was 48J. The implants stability was measured employing a Periotest device (Periotest Test Value: PTV) (measured immediately after the surgery, 7 days, 2 weeks, 4 weeks, and 2 and 3 months after the surgery) and the bone density using cone-beam computed tomography (grayscale value) (measured immediately after the surgery, 4 weeks and 12 weeks after the treatment).Results. The average implant stability at different time points showed lower PTV value (higher stability) at2ndand4thweek after 635 nm laser irradiation (G1) compared with a control (G2) group (p<0.01). The secondary stability of the implants after 12 weeks observation was not significantly higher for the laser group in contrast to none-irradiated implants (p>0.05). The mean grayscale value at the apical, middle, and cervical level of the titanium implants showed the reduction of pixel grayscale value after 2 weeks and was lower for the G1 group in contrast to the G2 group (p<0.01). The value of grayscale after 12 weeks was significantly higher at the middle and apical level of the implants in the G1group in contrast to the G2 group (p<0.01).Conclusion. The application of the 635 nm diode laser enhanced secondary implant stability and bone density. However, to assess the impact of the LLLT on peri-implant bone with different bone densities, further well-controlled long-term trials on larger study groups are needed.

Nowadays, many studies are examining the effectiveness of dental lasers in the treatment of peri-implantitis; however, most of them only report periodontal parameter changes. The authors of this review tried to address the question: “What is the effect of different laser wavelengths on oral bacteria that cause peri-implantitis?” An electronic search of PubMed and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials was performed. The following search terms were used: (peri-implantitis OR periimplantitis) OR/AND (microbial OR microbiologic) AND (laser OR Er:YAG OR erbium OR diode OR Nd:YAG OR neodymium-doped OR Er,Cr:YSGG OR chromium-doped). Initially, 212 studies were identified. After screening the titles and abstracts and excluding studies according to predefined inclusion criteria, seven publications were included in the review. Three studies about the effect of aPDT (antimicrobial photodynamic therapy) reported a decrease in the different bacterial strains associated with peri-implantitis, e.g., A. actinomycetemcomitans, P. gingivalis, P. intermedia, T. denticola, T. forsythia, F. nucleatum, and C. rectus. Two studies showed that the high-power diode laser may have some effect on peri-implant pathogens. Two articles about the Er:YAG laser reported a lowering in the count of oral pathogens; however, it was hard to determine if this was due to the use of the laser. aPDT has the ability to decrease the count of peri-implant pathogens, whereas Er:YAG laser application shows no significant effect on oral bacteria in the long term.

Background. The implant primary stability is a fundamental prerequisite for a success of osseointegration process which determines the prosthetic reconstruction time.