ArticleOral health & preventive dentistry2021
Comparison of Bur Abrasion and CO2 Laser in Treatment of Gingival Pigmentation: 6 Months Follow-Up.
Article in Oral health & preventive dentistry, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Ceramic soft tissue trimming bur gingival depigmentation: clinical performance and patient experience. A split mouth randomized controlled trial.BMC oral health · 2024Trial
- A Comparative Study of the Use of a 980 nm Diode Laser and 10600nm CO2 in the Treatment of Gingival Melanin Pigmentation.Journal of lasers in medical sciences · 2024Article
- Efficacy and Risks of Different Treatments for Oral Hyperpigmentation: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.Journal of clinical medicine · 2023Review
- Aesthetic Gingival Melanin Pigmentation Treatment in Smokers and Non-Smokers: A Comparison Study Using Nd:YAG Laser and Ceramic Bur.Journal of personalized medicine · 2023Article
- Comparison of the Effectiveness of CO2 and Diode Lasers for Gingival Melanin Depigmentation: A Randomized Clinical Trial.Journal of lasers in medical sciences · 2022Article
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
purposePigmentation of gingiva is an aesthetic problem. Until now, various methods have been introduced for removal of gingival pigmentation. The purpose of this study was to compare bur abrasion and CO2 laser methods in removing gingival pigmentation. MATERIALS AND
methodsTwelve patients aged 20-40 years old with the chief complaint of physiologic gingival pigmentation participated in this study. For these patients, gingival depigmentation was performed using two treatment modalities including bur abrasion and CO2 laser in a split-mouth design. Gingival depigmentation was performed in the right half of the anterior maxillary and mandibular sextants using bur abrasion method by means of diamond bur on a high-speed headpiece with vigorous water irrigation and the left half of the anterior maxillary and mandibular sextants using a CO2 laser. CO2 laser was set at: peak power 252 watts, repeat time 20 ms and pulse duration 200 microsecond which was used in a non-contact position. The area of pigmentation was calculated via gridlines in the Microsoft Paint software 1 and 6 months after the procedure. Gingival recession was also determined before, and at 1 and 6 months after the procedure.
resultsThe area of gingival pigmentation was not statistically significantly different between the two treatment modalities before the procedure (p = 0.452), 1 month (p = 0.443) and 6 months after the procedure (p = 0.202). There was no statistically significant difference in the variance of pigmented area at different times in the two methods. In both CO2 laser and bur abrasion methods, the mean area of pigmentation was statistically significantly different in the follow-up period (p < 0/001), in a way that the change in the area of pigmentation was statistically significant 1 month after treatment (p <0.001) and also 6 months after treatment (p < 0.001) compared to before. The change in the area of pigmentation between 1 and 6 months after treatment was not statistically significant in both CO2 laser (p = 0.157) and bur abrasion method (p = 0.150). No increase in gingival recession was observed in any of the patients.
conclusionBoth treatment modalities can effectively treat gingival pigmentation. No increase in gingival recession was observed. Conventional method and CO2 laser were not statistically significantly different during a follow-up period of 1 and 6 months.
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.