Next Article in Journal
The Effect of High-Frequency Vibration on Tooth Movement and Alveolar Bone in Non-Growing Skeletal Class II High Angle Orthodontic Patients: Case Series
Previous Article in Journal
In Vitro Shear Bond Strength of Orthodontic Brackets after Enamel Conditioning with Acid Etching and Hydroabrasion
Previous Article in Special Issue
Q-Switch Nd:YAG Laser-Assisted Decontamination of Implant Surface
Article

Effect of an Er,Cr:YSGG Laser on the Surface of Implants: A Descriptive Comparative Study of 3 Different Tips and Pulse Energies

Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Barcelona, 08907 Barcelona, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Dent. J. 2020, 8(4), 109; https://doi.org/10.3390/dj8040109
Received: 26 July 2020 / Revised: 27 September 2020 / Accepted: 30 September 2020 / Published: 30 September 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Laser in Implantology)
Peri-implant diseases are one of the main complications of dental implants. There are no well-established guidelines regarding laser parameters for implant decontamination. The aim was to compare two different settings of irradiation of the Er,Cr:YSGG laser on dental implants regarding surface alterations and determine the best settings for less damage on the surface. An in vitro study was performed and 30 areas of dental implants were irradiated with two different regimes of energy per pulse 50 and 84 mJ (1.5 W/30 Hz and 2.5 W/30 Hz). A total of 30 sites of implants were irradiated with three different tips (10 surfaces per tip): conical (RTF3-17 mm), side firing (SFT8-18 mm) and cylindrical (MGG6-6 mm). The following descriptive classification on surface damage was employed: no damage (class A), minimal effects (class B), metal fall with melting (class C), and destruction with carbonization (class D). The assessment was made through a descriptive scanning electron microscope (SEM) analysis. Side firing and conical tips at 50 mJ were classified as class A. Side firing at 84 mJ and cylindrical tips 50 mJ and 84 mJ were classified as class B. Finally, class C defects were found in the areas where the conical tip was used at 84 mJ. Side firing and conical tips at 50 mJ do not seem to damage the implant surface. View Full-Text
Keywords: Er,Cr:YSGG laser; peri-implantitis; peri-implant mucositis; implant surface damage Er,Cr:YSGG laser; peri-implantitis; peri-implant mucositis; implant surface damage
Show Figures

Figure 1

MDPI and ACS Style

Chegeni, E.; España-Tost, A.; Figueiredo, R.; Valmaseda-Castellón, E.; Arnabat-Domínguez, J. Effect of an Er,Cr:YSGG Laser on the Surface of Implants: A Descriptive Comparative Study of 3 Different Tips and Pulse Energies. Dent. J. 2020, 8, 109. https://doi.org/10.3390/dj8040109

AMA Style

Chegeni E, España-Tost A, Figueiredo R, Valmaseda-Castellón E, Arnabat-Domínguez J. Effect of an Er,Cr:YSGG Laser on the Surface of Implants: A Descriptive Comparative Study of 3 Different Tips and Pulse Energies. Dentistry Journal. 2020; 8(4):109. https://doi.org/10.3390/dj8040109

Chicago/Turabian Style

Chegeni, Ehsan, Antonio España-Tost, Rui Figueiredo, Eduard Valmaseda-Castellón, and Josep Arnabat-Domínguez. 2020. "Effect of an Er,Cr:YSGG Laser on the Surface of Implants: A Descriptive Comparative Study of 3 Different Tips and Pulse Energies" Dentistry Journal 8, no. 4: 109. https://doi.org/10.3390/dj8040109

Find Other Styles
Note that from the first issue of 2016, MDPI journals use article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Access Map by Country/Region

1
Back to TopTop