ArticleEuropean oral research2019
Preservation of keratinized gingiva around dental implants using a diode laser when uncovering implants for second stage surgery.
Article in European oral research, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe aim of the present study was to assess if a 940-nm diode laser or a traditional scalpel approach is more effective in minimizing patient comfort and postoperative sequelae, preserving peri-implant keratinized mucosa, and in enhancing impression quality after uncovering dental implants. MATERIALS AND
methodsWe designed a prospective, split mouth, single blinded, randomi¬zed controlled trial with patients who needed uncovering of dental implants. Our analysis included 388 implants in 73 patients. Split mouth technique was used to compare two approaches for uncovering implants: laser study group vs. scalpel control group. Patients were evaluated for intra- and post-operative pain and bleeding. At 1, 2, and 3 weeks post procedure patients in both groups were rechecked for postoperative sequelae, keratinized mucosal thickness quality and quantity, and accuracy of the implant emergence profile.
resultsThe laser study group showed that there was a reduction in postoperative pain and bleeding that was statistically significant in comparison to the control group. There were also statistically significant differences in gingival color and presence or absence of soft tissue edema and in the gingival was emergency profile between the laser and scalpel sides at 1, 2, and 3 weeks' post-procedure. Statistically significant differences (p< 0.001) were observed between the two groups in the criteria of ideal or satisfactory soft tissue projection in the gingival emergency profile, which indicates that impressions can be taken immediately or within 1 week after laser surgery.
conclusionUncovering dental implants using a diode laser operating at the wavelength of 940 ±10 nm, and a power output of 0.4-10 W is recommended for preparing an accurate implant emergence profile. Laser treatment can also effectively preserve keratinized mucosa around implants in comparison to the conventional scalpel technique.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.