Lazăr Luminița, Dakó Timea, Mureșan Izabella-Éva, Suciu Mircea, Maftei George-Alexandru, Tatarciuc Monica, Lazăr Ana-Petra
Department of Periodontology, George Emil Palade University of Medicine, Pharmacy, Science, and Technology of Targu Mures, 540139 Targu Mures, Romania.
Department of Odontology and Oral Pathology, George Emil Palade University of Medicine, Pharmacy, Science, and Technology of Targu Mures, 540139 Targu Mures, Romania.
Diagnostics (Basel). 2023 Mar 21;13(6):1192. doi: 10.3390/diagnostics13061192.
(1) Background: Early diagnosis and treatment of peri-implant mucositis may reduce inflammatory markers and halt the progression of the condition to peri-implantitis. Adjunctive laser treatment may have therapeutic benefits that are not yet well known. The aim of this study was to determine the advantages and limitations of laser therapy as an adjuvant in the treatment of peri-implant mucositis. (2) Methods: A total of 42 patients with at least 2 implants situated in different hemiarches were included in this study and divided into two groups: G1 (received laser therapy) and G2 (no laser therapy). Periodontal health status indices were recorded at the initial moment (T0), and all patients underwent non-surgical debridement therapy accompanied by oral hygiene training. In patients from group G1, one implant site received adjuvant laser therapy (subgroup IL), and the other one did not receive active laser light (IC). The plaque index (PI), probing pocket depth (PPD), and bleeding on probing (BOP) values recorded after 3 months (T1) and 6 months (T2) were analyzed and compared with those at T0. (3) Results: PI values considerably reduced at moment T1 and T2 for both G1 and G2 ( = 0.0031). PPD was also reduced, but the difference between the groups and the three recording moments was not statistically significant. Statistically significant differences were found when comparing the BOP values between G1 IL and G1 IC for T0/T1 ( = 0.0182) and T1/T2 ( < 0.0001), but there was no significant difference between G2 and G1 IL or G1 IC. (4) Conclusions: Laser therapy as an adjunct to conventional treatment of peri-implant mucositis leads to a statistically significant reduction in bleeding on probing at 3-month and 6-month re-evaluations. Moreover, it leads to an evident reduction in probing depth but with no statistical significance. These results should be interpreted with caution, and more in-depth research should be performed to create a complete laser therapy protocol for peri-implant mucositis.
(1) 背景：种植体周围黏膜炎的早期诊断和治疗可能会降低炎症标志物水平，并阻止病情发展为种植体周围炎。辅助激光治疗可能具有尚不为人熟知的治疗益处。本研究的目的是确定激光治疗作为种植体周围黏膜炎治疗辅助手段的优势和局限性。(2) 方法：本研究共纳入42例患者，其至少有2枚种植体位于不同的半牙弓，分为两组：G1组（接受激光治疗）和G2组（未接受激光治疗）。在初始时刻（T0）记录牙周健康状况指标，所有患者均接受非手术清创治疗并伴有口腔卫生训练。G1组患者中，一个种植位点接受辅助激光治疗（IL亚组），另一个未接受激光照射（IC）。分析并比较3个月（T1）和6个月（T2）后记录的菌斑指数（PI）、探诊深度（PPD）和探诊出血（BOP）值与T0时的值。(3) 结果：G1组和G2组在T1和T2时刻PI值均显著降低（P = 0.0031）。PPD也有所降低，但组间及三个记录时刻之间的差异无统计学意义。比较G1组IL亚组和IC亚组在T0/T1（P = 0.0182）和T1/T2（P < 0.0001）时的BOP值，发现存在统计学显著差异，但G2组与G1组IL亚组或IC亚组之间无显著差异。(4) 结论：激光治疗作为种植体周围黏膜炎传统治疗的辅助手段，在3个月和6个月的复查时，探诊出血有统计学显著减少。此外，探诊深度明显降低，但无统计学意义。这些结果应谨慎解读，并且应进行更深入的研究以制定完整的种植体周围黏膜炎激光治疗方案。
