Comparative evaluation of efficacy and soft tissue wound healing using diode laser (810 nm) versus conventional scalpel technique for second-stage implant surgery

• Published in: Journal of Indian Society of Periodontology Vol. 22; no. 3; pp. 228 - 234
• Main Authors: Kaur, Manvir, Sharma, Yash, Singh, Preetinder, Sharma, Shivli, Wahi, Ankur
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: India Wolters Kluwer India Pvt. Ltd 01.05.2018; Medknow Publications and Media Pvt. Ltd; Medknow Publications & Media Pvt. Ltd; Medknow Publications & Media Pvt Ltd; Wolters Kluwer Medknow Publications
• Subjects: Anesthesia; Bleeding; Comparative analysis; Dental implants; Dental surgery; diode laser; Implant dentures; implant exposure; Lasers; Methods; Oral surgery; Original; Pain; Patient outcomes; Patients; Radiation detectors; second-stage surgery; Semiconductor lasers; Statistical analysis; Surgery; Surgical equipment and supplies; Trauma; Wound healing; diode laser; second-stage surgery; Dental implants; implant exposure
• ISSN: 0972-124X; 0975-1580
• DOI: 10.4103/jisp.jisp_46_17

Background: This study was aimed to compare the efficacy and soft tissue wound healing using diode lasers (810 nm) versus conventional scalpel approach as uncovering technique during the second-stage surgery in implants. This was a prospective, randomized study which was conducted on 20 subjects in which the implants were already placed using a two-stage technique. Implant sites were examined and the patients were randomly divided into two groups. Materials and Methods: Patients were randomly divided into two groups, i.e., Group A and Group B. In Group A, implants were uncovered as a part of Stage II surgery with conventional scalpel technique, and in Group B, implants were uncovered using 810 nm diode laser. Clinical parameters such as need and amount of local anesthesia, duration of surgery, intraoperative bleeding, pain index, wound healing index (HI), and time for impression taking were recorded at various intervals. Results: Statistical differences for clinical parameters were seen between Group A and Group B showing uncovery of implant with laser more effective, and for time of impression taking, difference was statistically significant showing that impressions were taken early in case of Group A because of better healing which was recorded with help of HI, but the difference in time of healing between Group A and Group B was not statistically significant. Conclusion: The use of a diode laser (810 nm) in the second-stage implant surgery can minimize surgical trauma, reduce the amount of anesthesia, improve visibility during surgery due to the absence of bleeding, and eliminate postoperative discomfort.