These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Surface properties of endosseous dental implants after NdYAG and CO2 laser treatment at various energies.
    Author: Park CY, Kim SG, Kim MD, Eom TG, Yoon JH, Ahn SG.
    Journal: J Oral Maxillofac Surg; 2005 Oct; 63(10):1522-7. PubMed ID: 16182922.
    Abstract:
    OBJECTIVES: Dental lasers have been used for uncovering submerged implants as well as decontaminating implant surfaces when treating peri-implantitis. The objective of this study was to compare the possible alterations of the smooth surface and resorbable blast material (RBM) surface implants after using NdYAG and CO(2) lasers at various energies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ten smooth surface implants and 10 RBM surface implants were used. Two smooth surface implants and 2 RBM surface implants served as a control group that was not lased. The remaining implants were treated using NdYAG and CO(2) lasers. The surface of each implant was treated for 10 seconds on the second and third threads. The smooth surface implants (group 1) were treated using a pulsed contact NdYAG laser at power settings of 1, 2, 3.5, and 5 W, which are commonly used for soft tissue surgery; the corresponding energy and frequency were 50 mJ and 20 Hz, 100 mJ and 20 Hz, 350 mJ and 10 Hz, and 250 mJ and 20 Hz, respectively. The group 2 RBM implants were treated using a pulsed contact NdYAG laser. The group 3 smooth surface implants were treated using a pulsed wave non-contact CO(2) laser at 1, 2, 3.5, and 5 W, and the group 4 RBM implants were treated using a pulsed wave non-contact CO(2) laser. Data were analyzed using scanning electron microscopy. RESULTS: The control surface was very regular and smooth. After NdYAG laser treatment, the implant surface showed alterations of all the surfaces. The amount of damage was proportional to the power. A remarkable finding was the similarity of the lased areas on the smooth and RBM surfaces. CO(2) laser at power settings of 1.0 or 2.0 W did not alter the implant surface, regardless of implant type. At settings of 3.5 and 5 W, there was destruction of the micromachined groove and gas formation. CONCLUSION: This study supports that CO(2) laser treatment appears more useful than NdYAG laser treatment and CO(2) laser does not damage titanium implant surface, which should be of value when uncovering submerged implants and treating peri-implantitis.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]