We are using cookies to implement functions like login, shopping cart or language selection for this website. Furthermore we use Google Analytics to create anonymized statistical reports of the usage which creates Cookies too. You will find more information in our privacy policy.
OK, I agree I do not want Google Analytics-Cookies
The International Journal of Oral & Maxillofacial Implants



Forgotten password?


Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 30 (2015), No. 2     26. Mar. 2015
Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 30 (2015), No. 2  (26.03.2015)

Page 338-345, doi:10.11607/jomi.3846, PubMed:25830394

Comparison of the Efficacy of Different Types of Lasers for the Treatment of Peri-Implantitis: A Systematic Review
Natto, Zuhair S. / Aladmawy, Majdi / Levi jr., Paul A. / Wang, Hom-Lay
Purpose: To evaluate the efficacy of various types of lasers (neodymium-doped yttrium-aluminum-garnet [Nd:YAG], carbon dioxide [CO2], diode, erbium/chromium-doped yttrium-scandium-gallium-garnet [Er,Cr:YSGG], and erbium-doped yttrium-aluminum-garnet [Er:YAG]) in the treatment of peri-implantitis and their use in surgical and nonsurgical procedures.
Materials and Methods: Human studies for the treatment of peri-implantitis with laser therapy, published between 2002 and January 2014, were collected utilizing the electronic databases PubMed, Ovid, MEDLINE, Cochrane, and Google Scholar. Two reviewers conducted the study selection, data collection, and validity assessment.
Results: Eight hundred twelve studies were selected in the initial title search; 13 studies were then chosen for this review. No human studies evaluated the effect of the Nd:YAG laser on peri-implantitis. The CO2 laser is reported to be safe and able to enhance bone regeneration. The diode laser (980 nm) seems to be effective in its bactericidal effect without changing the implant surface pattern. The Er,Cr:YSGG laser was reported to obtain bone regeneration around a failing implant in one case, while the Er:YAG laser exhibits a strong bactericidal effect against periodontopathic bacteria at a low energy level.
Conclusion: Although lasers have shown promising results in reducing clinical signs of peri-implantitis, because of the limited sample sizes and short follow-up periods, no firm conclusion can be drawn at this moment. Hence, there is a need for more well-designed, longitudinal, randomized controlled clinical trials.

Keywords: carbon dioxide laser, diode laser, erbium/chromium-doped yttrium-scandium-gallium-garnet laser, erbium-doped yttrium-aluminum-garnet laser, neodymium-doped yttrium-aluminum-garnet laser, peri-implantitis