Implant Surface Topography Following Different Laser Treatments: An In Vitro Study

Abstract

Background Although dental implants have demonstrated very high success rates, they are susceptible to complications such as peri-implantitis that can lead to failure. Methods Twenty implants with surfaces grit-blasted using hydroxyapatite and acid-etched were randomly divided into four groups (five in each group). Three groups were assigned to laser treatments: Group I (erbium, chromium-doped: yttrium, scandium, gallium, and garnet (Er,Cr:YSGG) laser), Group II (650-nm diode laser), and Group III (808-nm diode), and one control group, Group IV. The surface roughness parameters (roughness average(Ra) and root mean square roughness(Rq)) were measured using a non-contact optical profilometer and scanning electron microscope to evaluate the surface topography after the laser treatments. Results Significant differences were observed between the laser groups regarding the surface roughness Ra (3.56±0.26, 3.45±0.19, 3.77±0.42, p c =0.0004, p e =0.0002, p f =0.001) and Rq values (4.49±0.34, 4.35±0.26, 4.72±0.56, p c =0.0007, p e =0.0006, p f =0.002) and the control group (2.81±0.10; 3.57±0.19). However, no significant difference was observed between the different laser treatment modalities. The scanning electron microscope images revealed some morphological changes on the implant surfaces following laser treatment, but no melted morphology was observed. Conclusions The application of Er,Cr:YSGG, 650-nm diode laser, and 808-nm diode did not show melting changes on implant topography. However, some increase in surface roughness was detected. Further studies are recommended to assess the effectiveness of these laser settings on bacterial reduction and osseointegration.

Effectiveness of Photobiomodulation With Low-Level Laser Therapy on the Implant Stability Quotient at Different Time Intervals: A Randomized Clinical Trial

“…This split-mouth, randomized, single-blinded clinical trial highlights the effectiveness of LLLT in improving dental implant outcomes. The decision to evaluate implant stability at specific time intervals (one, two, four, and twelve weeks after implant placement) is grounded in the typical healing and osseointegration process observed in dental implants [14]. These time points coincide with essential stages of tissue healing, bone formation, and implant integration.…”

Impact of Er,Cr:YSGG Laser, Sandblast, and Acid Etching Surface Modification on Surface Topography of Biodental Titanium Implants

“…In addition, the number of micropores increased while showing no signs of surface melting as observed under SEM. 37 Regarding normal bone metabolism, the Ti oxide layer on the implant surface is adjusted by laser treatment to prevent the release of ions or molecules from the Ti surface and to protect the biological environment from the extremely reactive Ti metal. This plays a major role as a diffusion barrier in the success of osseointegration and manages bone ingrowth direction.…”