Laser therapy as an effective method for implant surface decontamination: a histomorphometric study in rats.

BACKGROUND: To the best of the authors' knowledge, a standard protocol for treating peri-implantitis is not yet established. METHODS: A total of 150 titanium disks with smooth or rough surfaces contaminated with microbial biofilm were implanted subcutaneously in rats after undergoing one of three treatments: 1) low-intensity laser (LIL); 2) antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT); or 3) toluidine blue O (TBO). Sterile and contaminated disks served as negative (NC) and positive (C) control groups, respectively. After days 7, 28, and 84, tissue inflammation was evaluated microscopically by measuring the density of collagen fibers (degree of fibrosis) and concentration of polymorphonuclear neutrophils. RESULTS: Surface texture did not affect the degree of inflammation, but the area of reactive tissue was significantly greater for rough implants (2.6 ± 3.7 × 10(6) µm(2)) than for smooth ones (1.9 ± 2.6 × 10(6) µm(2); P = 0.0377). Group C presented the lowest and group NC presented the highest degree of fibrosis with significance only after day 7; these groups had the highest and lowest scores, respectively, for degree of inflammation. Group C showed the largest area of reactive tissue (9.11 ± 2.10 × 10(6) µm(2)), but it was not significantly larger than group LIL (P = 0.3031) and group TBO (P = 0.1333). Group aPDT showed the smallest area (4.34 ± 1.49 × 10(6) µm(2)) of reactive tissue among the treatment groups. After day 28, groups LIL, aPDT, TBO, and C resembled group NC in all the studied parameters. CONCLUSION: Group aPDT showed more favorable results in parameter area of reactive tissue than the other methods after day 7, but over longer time periods all methods produced outcomes equivalent to sterile implants.

Interdisciplinary treatment of localized juvenile periodontitis: a new perspective to an old problem.

What can be done for a 17-year-old girl with localized juvenile periodontitis, a Class II malocclusion, and flared teeth? Is it possible to regain epithelial attachment and rebuild the bone architecture? Is it possible to achieve good esthetics and occlusion with conventional orthodontic treatment, or is an interdisciplinary approach needed? What sequence should be followed? What is the prognosis for the affected teeth in the long term? Our aim in this article was to review the literature and present a clinical case to shed more light on the subject.

Histomorphometric study of the healing of human oral mucosa after gingivoplasty and low-level laser therapy.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The aim of the present study was to analyze the effects of diode laser irradiation on the healing of human oral mucosa. MATERIALS AND METHODS: After gingivoplasty, the right hemi-arch (test group) of 16 patients was irradiated with a diode laser. The left side (control group) was not irradiated. Incisional biopsies were performed on both sides at 7, 14, 21, and 60 days after surgery and morphometrically analyzed by light microscopy. RESULTS: Epithelium width ranged from 260.6 to 393.5 microm. Volume densities of basal (20.2%), prickle cell (55.6%), and cornified (24.2%) layers remained stable. The peak number of neutrophils were 6 cells/mm(2) and the mononuclear cells were 44 cells/mm(2). Collagen fibers (80%) and fibroblasts (14%) occupied the main volume of connective tissue. The one-way ANOVA and the paired Student's t-test were used for statistical analysis (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Low-level laser therapy did not accelerate the healing of oral mucosa after gingivoplasty.