EVALUATION OF CRESTAL BONE CHANGES AROUND DELAYED IMPLANT IN RESPONSE TO DIODE LASER THEARAPY: A RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL. | ||||
| Egyptian Dental Journal | ||||
| Article 3, Volume 66, Issue 2 - April (Oral Surgery), April 2020, Page 841-851 PDF (1.44 MB) | ||||
| Document Type: Original Article | ||||
| DOI: 10.21608/edj.2020.24407.1039 | ||||
 View on SCiNiTO | ||||
| Authors | ||||
Saleh Ahmed Bakry  1; Heba M. Kamel2
| ||||
| 1Oral surgery department, Faculty of dentistry, Cairo university, Egypt | ||||
| 2oral and maxillofacial surgery department,faculty of dentistry, cairo university | ||||
| Abstract | ||||
| Dental implants have become an essential part in the field of dentistry. One of the commonly used criteria for evaluation of dental implant success is the marginal bone changes around the dental implant. The aim of the study was to evaluate crestal bone changes around delayed dental implants subjected to low intensity laser application compared to dental implants without laser application.This was a randomized controlled clinical trial conducted on twelve patients with twelve missing premolar maxillary teeth which needed to be replaced with dental implants. The Patients were randomly divided into 2 groups. Group A (non-laser group) received endosseous root form implant, and the healing phase was left to progress spontaneously without any intervention while Group B (Laser group) received endosseous root form implant followed by low intensity laser application. Clinical parameters assessed were probing depth (PD) and the distance between implant shoulder and mucosa. Radiographic parameter measured using paralleling periapical x-ray was the distance between implant shoulder and bone, which represented crestal bone level. For the clinical parameters measured, including the PD and DIM, it was shown that the LLLT had no effect on the results as no significant difference in pocket depth was found between the two groups. For the DIB which was measured radiographically , the mean crestal bone loss was 0.4 mm after 6 months of implant placement in the Laser group versus 0.7mm after 6 months in the non-laser group. This result showed no statistically significant difference between the two groups. | ||||
| Keywords | ||||
| Delayed implants; Laser; LLLT; marginal bone loss | ||||
|
Statistics Article View: 324 PDF Download: 496 |
||||
