Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36541106›Full record

Trial reportClinical oral implants research2023

Photobiomodulation in dental implant stability and post-surgical healing and inflammation. A randomised double-blind study.

Gisela C V Camolesi, José M Somoza-Martín, Maria D Reboiras-López, Fabio Camacho-Alonso, Andrés Blanco-Carrión, Mario Pérez-Sayáns

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Clinical oral implants research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Gisela C V CamolesiOral Medicine, Oral Surgery and Implantology Unit (MedOralRes), Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Galicia, Spain.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0757-638X
José M Somoza-MartínOral Medicine, Oral Surgery and Implantology Unit (MedOralRes), Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Galicia, Spain.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9386-784X
Maria D Reboiras-LópezOral Medicine, Oral Surgery and Implantology Unit (MedOralRes), Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Galicia, Spain.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5792-8350
Fabio Camacho-AlonsoDepartment of Oral Surgery, University of Murcia, Murcia, Spain.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3739-1792
Andrés Blanco-CarriónOral Medicine, Oral Surgery and Implantology Unit (MedOralRes), Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Galicia, Spain.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7405-1834
Mario Pérez-SayánsOral Medicine, Oral Surgery and Implantology Unit (MedOralRes), Faculty of Medicine and Dentistry, University of Santiago de Compostela, Santiago de Compostela, Galicia, Spain.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2196-9868

Funding

Nueva GalimplantUniversity of Santiago de Compostela USC-2019-CE178
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe aim of this randomized clinical trial was to evaluate the effect of diode laser photobiomodulation (PBM) on post-surgical healing, inflammation and implant stability.

methodsForty dental implants were inserted into 13 patients. The implants were randomly divided into two groups. The test group (PBM+) underwent two sessions of PBM (combined diode laser of 630 and 808 nm), the first of which after surgery, and the second, 7 days after the surgical procedure. The control group (PBM-) received simulated laser treatment. The implant stability quotient (ISQ) was determined immediately after the surgical procedure, and 7 days, 4 and 8 weeks later. Post-surgical inflammation was assessed following the criteria described by Bloemen and Cols. Healing was calculated using the healing index (HI).

resultsNo differences were found in terms of the mean values of implant stability between the test and control groups over time. Only two of the implants (18.2%) from the PBM- group were classified with the maximum healing index (HI = 5), whereas in the PBM+ group, nine implants (45%) were classified with the aforementioned index (P < 0.0001). Using the logistic regression, it was determined that the non-application of the laser in the PBM- group caused an OR of 4.333 times of presenting inflammation (IC95% 1.150-16.323; P = 0.030).

conclusionsThe application of 808 nm infra-red laser for bone tissue, and 630 nm for mucosal tissue in two sessions is considered to be an effective way of reducing inflammation and improving early healing. More studies are needed to confirm these results.

Indexed as

Dental ImplantsLow-Level Light TherapyBone and BonesDental Implantation, EndosseousDouble-Blind MethodHumansLasers, SemiconductorDental Implantsmucosal healingmucosal inflammationosseointegrated dental implantsphotobiomodulation

Identifiers

PMID36541106
PMCPMC10107821

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.