The use of low level laser therapy in conjunction with diode laser-assisted and conventional vestibuloplasty: Comparison of wound healing and vestibular depth gain.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study is to compare wound healing and vestibular depth gain in individuals undergoing vestibule deepening surgery using diode laser and conventional technique and to further investigate the possible wound healing effect of low-level laser therapy (LLLT). MATERIAL AND METHODS: 52 systemically healthy individuals with insufficient vestibular depth in the region of teeth 33-43 in the lower jaw were included. Following nonsurgical periodontal treatment, patients were divided into four groups as follows: a) diode laser (L); b) diode laser + LLLT; c) conventional surgery and d) conventional surgery + LLLT. Vestibular depth and horizontal wound size measurements of the individuals were recorded using digital calipers. Reepithelization was evaluated via an image analysis program. RESULTS: Vestibular depth measurements were found to be higher in the conventional surgery groups compared to that of diode laser groups after the operation, while the results were not statistically different between groups (p >0.05). Reepithelization area did not differ between groups in the evaluated time periods (p >0,05). On the other hand, horizontal wound shrinkage was significantly higher in the conventional surgery group than that of diode laser. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limits of this study, both methods yielded in vestibule depth gain. On the other hand, LLLT did not have an additional positive effect on mucosal wound healing. As a clinical relevance, the results are valuable for clinicians in terms of showing that suturing of the mucosal flap formed following vestibule deepening should not be necessary in laser assisted surgery for attaining more vestibule depth.

Analysis of risk indicators for prevalence of peri-implant diseases in Turkish population.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this cross-sectional study was (1) to determine the prevalence of peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis and (2) to reveal the risk indicators associated with peri-implant diseases. The second point was to investigate the role of keratinized mucosa on peri-implant health. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three hundred and eighty-two subjects who were treated with 1415 dental implants between 2011-2017 were clinically evaluated. Patients' medical and dental history, as well as implant details, were recorded. Peri-implant examination included probing pocket depth (PPD), bleeding on probing (BoP), plaque index (PI), gingival index (GI), and keratinized tissue width. Furthermore, the patient (sex, age, and smoking) and implant/prosthesis-related factors (surface characteristic, time in function, design of prosthesis etc.) were evaluated. Implants were classified into three groups: healthy, peri-implant mucositis, and peri-implantitis. Uni- and multi-variate regression analyses were utilized for statistics. RESULTS: 41.1% (n = 157) and 36.9% (n = 84) of patients had mucositis and peri-implantitis, respectively. 53.6% (n = 758) of implants (95%CI 80.2-90.4) had mucositis, and 21.7% (n = 307) had peri-implantitis. Patients with a maintenance < 2/year (OR = 2.576), having periodontitis (OR = 3.342) and higher PI (OR = 3.046) had significant associations with the development of peri-implant mucositis. Significant ORs were determined for peri-implantitis with patients having maintenance < 2/year (OR = 2.048), having number of implants ≥ 4 (OR = 2.103), diagnosed with periodontitis (OR = 3.295), and higher PI (OR = 7.055). Keratinized tissue width < 2 mm (ORs = 5389/8.013), PPD (ORs = 1.570/8.338), PI (ORs = 6.726/5.205), and BoP (ORs = 3.645/4.353) independent variables were significantly associated with both peri-implant mucositis and peri-implantitis at implant level, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limits of this study, the prevalence of mucositis and peri-implantitis was shown to be high in Turkish population. Furthermore, increased risk for peri-implantitis was identified in patients having maintenance < 2/year, presence of periodontitis, poor plaque control, and having number of implants ≥ 4. Less keratinized tissue (< 2 mm), PPD, and BoP were also risk indicators for peri-implantitis development.