ArticleLasers in medical science2016
CO2 laser surface treatment of failed dental implants for re-implantation: an animal study.
Article in Lasers in medical science, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Efficacy of laser in re-osseointegration of dental implants-a systematic review.Lasers in medical science · 2023Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of the present study was to evaluate the success rate of failed implants re-implanted after surface treatment with CO2 laser. Despite the widespread use of dental implants, there are many incidents of failures. It is believed that lasers can be applied to decontaminate the implant surface without damaging the implant. Ten dental implants that had failed for various reasons other than fracture or surface abrasion were subjected to CO2 laser surface treatment and randomly placed in the maxillae of dogs. Three failed implants were also placed as the negative controls after irrigation with saline solution without laser surface treatment. The stability of the implants was evaluated by the use of the Periotest values (PTVs) on the first day after surgery and at 1, 3, and 6 months post-operatively. The mean PTVs of treated implants increased at the first month interval, indicating a decrease in implant stability due to inflammation followed by healing of the tissue. At 3 and 6 months, the mean PTVs decreased compared to the 1-month interval (P < 0.05), indicating improved implant stability. The mean PTVs increased in the negative control group compared to baseline (P < 0.05). Independent t-test showed that the mean PTVs of treated implants were significantly lower than control group at 3 and 6 months after implant placement (P < 0.05). Based on the PTVs, re-implantation of failed implants in Jack Russell Terrier dogs after CO2 laser surface debridement is associated with a high success rate in terms of implant stability.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27126410What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.