LOGIN
 
Share Page:
Back

Volume 21 , Issue 3
May/June 2006

Pages 375–379


Use of Er:YAG Laser to Improve Osseointegration of Titanium Alloy Implants—A Comparison of Bone Healing

Gavriel Kesler, DMD / George Romanos, Dr Med Dent, DDS, PhD / Rumelia Koren, MD


PMID: 16796279

Purpose: The objective of this study was to compare the osseointegration of implants in rats in sites prepared with an Er:YAG laser with osseointegration in sites prepared using a conventional drill by assessing the percentage of bone-implant contact (BIC). Materials and Methods: Osteotomies were prepared with an Er:YAG laser in the tibiae of 18 rats (the test group) and drill-prepared with a 1.3-mm-wide surgical implant drill at 1,000 rpm with simultaneous saline irrigation in the tibiae of another 18 rats (the control group). Acid-etched titanium alloy implants (2 3 8 mm) were placed in the tibiae, engaging the opposite cortical plate. The Er:YAG laser was used with a regular handpiece and water irrigation (spot size, 2 mm; energy per pulse, 500 to 1,000 mJ; pulse duration, 400 ms; and energy density, 32 J/cm2). Nine animals from each group were sacrificed after 3 weeks of unloaded healing; the remainder were sacrificed after 3 months. The tissues were fixed and prepared for histologic and histomorphometric evaluation. Results: Statistical analysis showed significant differences between the 2 groups at both 3 weeks and 3 months. After 3 weeks of unloaded healing, the mean BICs (±SD) were 59.48% (± 21.89%) for the laser group and 12.85% (± 11.13%) for the control group. Following 3 months of unloaded healing, the mean BICs (±SD) were 73.54% (± 11.53%) for the laser group and 32.6% (± 6.39%) for the control group. Discussion: Preparation of the implant sites with the Er:YAG laser did not damage the interface; the healing patterns presented were excellent. Conclusions: Based on the results of this study, it may be concluded that the Er:YAG laser may be used clinically for implant site preparation with good osseointegration results and bone healing and with a significantly higher percentage of BIC compared to those achieved with conventional methods. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2006;21:375–379


Full Text PDF File | Order Article

 

 
Get Adobe Reader
Adobe Acrobat Reader is required to view PDF files. This is a free program available from the Adobe web site.
Follow the download directions on the Adobe web site to get your copy of Adobe Acrobat Reader.

 

© 2014 Quintessence Publishing Co, Inc JOMI Home
Current Issue
Ahead of Print
Archive
Author Guidelines
About
Accepted Manuscripts
Submission Form
Submit
Reprints
Permission
Advertising
Quintessence Home
Terms of Use
Privacy Policy
About Us
Contact Us
Help