ArticleBMC oral health2025
Effect of different wavelengths and powers of laser on surface topography and biofilm removal from titanium implants: an in vitro study.
Article in BMC oral health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis in vitro study aimed to evaluate the effect of using different wavelengths and powers of laser on the surface topography of titanium implants, and to investigate their efficacy in removal of the biofilm complex from the implant surface.
methodsTen titanium implants, consisting of five new and five failed implants, were randomized and divided into five separate test groups; (Group 1) Erbium Chromium: Yttrium Scandium Gallium Garnet (Er, Cr: YSGG) 2780 nm, (Group 2) Erbium-doped: Yttrium Aluminum Garnet (Er: YAG) 2940 nm, (Group 3) Neodymium-doped: Yttrium Aluminum Garnet (Nd: YAG) 1064 nm, (Group 4) Diode 940 nm, and (Group 5) Diode 445 nm. Each test group consisted of two implants; one new and one failed implant. A total of 160 implant sites were irradiated. Each area was scanned using Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM) prior to and following laser irradiations. A descriptive analysis was conducted by summarizing the data in terms of frequencies and percentages. Pearson Chi Square test and Fisher's Exact test were used for comparison between different laser type and laser power intensities. The significance level was set at P < .05.
resultsWithin the parameters under investigation, both Er, Cr: YSGG and Er: YAG lasers displayed no to minimal alterations in surface topography across the different power intensities. Nd: YAG and Diode lasers showed more evident alterations at high power intensities; with Nd: YAG resulting the most prominent damage to the implant surface. Regarding efficacy in removal of biofilm, Er, Cr: YSGG and Er: YAG lasers consistently exhibited positive results across all different power intensities under investigation. In comparison, Nd: YAG and Diode lasers showed inferior efficacy in biofilm removal at low power intensities with significant power-dependent improvements.
conclusionsEr, Cr: YSGG and Er: YAG lasers present superior implant decontamination potential without causing notable implant surface alterations. Diode (940 nm) laser can be used at low power intensities without causing detrimental effects. Nd: YAG and Diode (445 nm) lasers are able to disrupt the biofilm complex but can induce more evident implant surface damage.
trial registrationThis is not a human subject research.
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.