Advances in Clinical and Experimental Medicine

Title abbreviation: Adv Clin Exp Med
JCR Impact Factor (IF) – 2.1
5-Year Impact Factor – 2.2
Scopus CiteScore – 3.4 (CiteScore Tracker 3.4)
Index Copernicus  – 161.11; MEiN – 140 pts

ISSN 1899–5276 (print)
ISSN 2451-2680 (online)
Periodicity – monthly

Download original text (EN)

Advances in Clinical and Experimental Medicine

2016, vol. 25, nr 6, November-December, p. 1179–1184

doi: 10.17219/acem/62456

Publication type: original article

Language: English

Download citation:

  • BIBTEX (JabRef, Mendeley)
  • RIS (Papers, Reference Manager, RefWorks, Zotero)

Assessment of Pain When Uncovering Implants with Er:YAG Laser or Scalpel for Second Stage Surgery

Jacek Matys1,A,B,C,D, Marzena Dominiak2,E,F

1 Private Dental Practice, Wschowa, Poland

2 Department of Dental Surgery, Wroclaw Medical University, Poland

Abstract

Background. Different methods aimed at decreasing pain during some soft tissue procedures in dentistry are still under research. Modern devices as lasers could be a method to reduce the pain and duration of second stage implant surgery.
Objectives. To assess the pain and the impression quality when uncovering implants with a laser and with a scalpel.
Material and Methods. The analysis included 60 implants (Dentium SuperLine, Suwon, Korea) in 30 patients (23 women and 7 men) aged 25–69. In the experimental group, 30 implants were uncovered by means of an Er:YAG laser (LiteTouch®, Syneron Dental, Yokneam, Israel) with the following fixed operation parameters: 300 mJ, 18 Hz, water cooling at 40%, energy density per pulse: 38.21 J/cm2, tip size: 1.0 × 17 mm, distance: 2 mm, tip angle set at 70°, no anesthesia. As a control, 30 implants were uncovered using a scalpel and topical application of 20% benzocaine. An 11-point numeric pain rating scale (NRS-11) was used to evaluate the pain level. A 3-point prosthetic impression scale (PIS) designed by the authors was used to assess the quality of the impression of the implant emergence profile.
Results. The mean value of pain assessed on the NRS-11 for the Er:YAG laser and scalpel were 2.6 and 6, respectively. The mean value of pain for the laser and scalpel at a supracrestal height of periimplant soft tissue (SHPST) ≤ 3 mm were 1.8 and 4.7 respectively, and for SHPST > 3 mm the values were 3.3 and 7.4, respectively. The implant emergence profile impression showed satisfactory or ideal quality in 26 cases.
Conclusion. The use of Er:YAG laser reduces pain and allows minor surgical procedures to be carried out without anesthesia. The impression quality is satisfactory for the preparation of prosthetic reconstructions.

Key words

pain, NRS-11 scale, Erbium:YAG laser, PIS scale, emergence profile

References (29)

  1. Wigdor H, Walsh J, Featherstone JDB, Visuri SR, Fried D, Waldvogel JL: Lasers in dentistry. Lasers Surg Med 1995, 16, 103–133.
  2. Bader H: Use of lasers in periodontics. Dent Clin North Am 2000, 44, 779–792.
  3. Ishikawa I, Aoki A, Takasaki AA: Potential applications of Erbium:YAG laser in periodontics. J Periodontal Res 2004, 4, 275–285.
  4. Schuller DE: Use of the laser in the oral cavity. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 1990, 23, 31–42.
  5. Mello I, Robazza CR, Antoniazzi JH: Influence of Er:YAG laser irradiation on apical sealing of four different sealers. Braz Dent J 2004, 3, 190–193.
  6. Dostalova T, Jelinkova H, Krejsa O, Hamal H: Evaluation of the surface changes in enamel and dentin due to possibility of thermal overheating induced by Erbium:YAG laser radiation. Scanning Microsc 1996, 10, 285–290.
  7. Glenn VA: Erbium lasers in dentistry. Dent Clin N Am 2004, 48, 1017–1059.
  8. Crespi R, Barone A, Covani U: Er:YAG laser scaling of diseased root surfaces: A histologic study. J Periodontol 2006, 77, 218–222.
  9. Eberhard J, Ehlers H, Falk W, Acil Y, Albers HK, Jepsen S: Efficacy of subgingival calculus removal with Er:YAG laser compared to mechanical debridement: An in situ study. J Clin Periodontol 2003, 30, 511–518.
  10. Gaspirc B, Skaleric U: Clinical evaluation of periodontal surgical treatment with an Er:YAG Laser: 5-year results. J Periodontol 2007, 78, 1864–1871.
  11. Tomasi C, Schander K, Dahlen G, Wennstrom JL: Short-term clinical and microbiologic effects of pocket debridement with an Er:YAG laser during periodontal maintenance. J Periodontol 2006, 77, 111–118.
  12. Bednarz W: The thickness of periodontal soft tissue ultrasonic examination – current possibilities and perspectives. Dent Med Probl 2011, 48, 3, 303–310.
  13. Hoelscher DC, Simons AM: The rationale for soft-tissue grafting and vestibuloplasty in association with endosseous implants: A literature review. J Oral Implantol 1994, 20, 282–291.
  14. Kan JYK, Rungcharassaeng K, Lozada JL, Zimmerman G: Facial gingival tissue stability following immediate placement and provisionalization of maxillary anterior single implants: A 2- to 8-year follow-up. Int J Oral and Max Impl 2011, 26, 179–187.
  15. Hsu YT, Shieh CH, Wang HL: Using soft tissue graft to prevent mid-facial mucosal recession following immediate implant placement. J Int Acad Periodontol 2012, 14, 76–82.
  16. Cosyn J, Hooghe N, de Bruyn H: A systematic review on the frequency of advanced recession following single immediate implant treatment. J Clin Periodontol 2012, 39, 582–589.
  17. Santos Calderon P, Peixoto RF, Gomes VM, da Mota Corrêa AS, de Alencar EN, Rossetti LM, Conti PC: Concordance among different pain scales in patients with dental pain. J Orofac Pain 2012, 26, 126–131.
  18. Jensen MP, Karoly P, O’Riordan EF, Bland F, Burns RS: The subjective experience of acute pain. An assessment of the utility of 10 indices. Clin J Pain 1989, 2, 153–159.
  19. Williamson A, Hoggart B: Pain: A review of three commonly used pain rating scales. J Clin Nurs 2005, 14, 798–804.
  20. Renvert S, Lessem J, Dahle´n G, Lindahl C, Svensson M: Topical minocycline micro-spheres versus topical chlorhexidine gel as an adjunct to mechanical debridement of incipient peri-implant infections: A randomized clinical trial. J Clin Periodontol 2006, 33, 362–369.
  21. Chen CK, Chang NJ, Ke JH, Fu E, Lan WH: Er:YAG laser application for removal of keratosis using topical anesthesia. J Dent Sci 2013, 8, 196–199.
  22. Fornaini C, Rocca JP, Merigo E, Meleti M, Manfredi M, Nammour S, Vescovi P: Low energy KTP laser in oral soft tissue surgery: A 52 patients clinical study. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal 2012, 17, 287–291.
  23. Trajtenberg C, Adibi S: Removal of an irritation fibroma using an Er,Cr:YSGG laser: A case report. Gen Dent 2008, 56, 648–651.
  24. Genovese MD, Olivi G: Laser in paediatric dentistry: Patient acceptance of hard and soft tissue therapy. Eur J Paediatr Dent 2008, 9, 13–17.
  25. Berger JW, Amico DJ: Modeling of erbium: YAG laser-mediated explosive photovaporization: Implications for vitreoretinal surgery. Ophthalmic Surg Lasers 1997, 28, 133–139.
  26. Grandi T, Guazzi P, Samarani R, Garuti G: Immediate positioning of definitive abutments versus repeated abutment replacements in immediately loaded implants: Effects on bone healing at the 1-year follow-up of a multicentre randomised controlled trial. Eur J Oral Implantol 2012, 5, 9–16.
  27. Koutouzis T, Koutouzis G, Gadalla H, Neiva R: The effect of healing abutment reconnection and disconnection on soft and hard peri-implant tissues: A short-term randomized controlled clinical trial. Int J Oral Max Impl 2013, 28, 807–814.
  28. Quirynen M, Vogels R, Peeters W, van Steen-berghe D, Naert I, Haffajee A: Dynamics of initial subgingival colonization of ‘pristine’ peri-implant pockets. Clin Oral Impl Res 2006, 17, 25–37.
  29. Gabrić Pandurić D, Sušić M, Brozović J, Smojver I, Vučićević V, Katanec D: Diode and Er:YAG laser vs. conventional technique for second stage surgery. Clin Oral Impl Res 2014, 25, 397.
© Wroclaw Medical University