Dental and Medical Problems

Dent Med Probl
Index Copernicus (ICV 2020) – 128.41
MEiN – 70 pts
CiteScore (2021) – 2.0
JCI (2021) – 0.5
Average rejection rate (2021) – 82%
ISSN 1644-387X (print)
ISSN 2300-9020 (online)
Periodicity – quarterly

Download original text (EN)

Dental and Medical Problems

2022, vol. 59, nr 2, April-June, p. 281–289

doi: 10.17219/dmp/143242

Publication type: review

Language: English

License: Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported (CC BY 3.0)

Download citation:

  • BIBTEX (JabRef, Mendeley)
  • RIS (Papers, Reference Manager, RefWorks, Zotero)

Cite as:


Vande A, Sanyal PK, Nilesh K. Effectiveness of the photobio­modulation therapy using low-level laser around dental implants: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Dent Med Probl. 2022;59(2):281–289. doi:10.17219/dmp/143242

Effectiveness of the photobiomodulation therapy using low-level laser around dental implants: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Aaditee Vande1,A,B,C,D,F, Pronob Kumar Sanyal1,B,C,E,F, Kumar Nilesh2,E,F

1 Department of Prosthodontics and Crown & Bridge, School of Dental Sciences, Krishna Institute of Medical Sciences “Deemed to be University”, Karad, India

2 Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, School of Dental Sciences, Krishna Institute of Medical Sciences “Deemed to be University”, Karad, India

Abstract

Background. The photobiomodulation (PBM) therapy has been applied in various fields. Its use in implant dentistry has been proven through various animal, in vitro, and recently also clinical studies. However, the cumulative data of its effect around dental implants in patients is limited.

Objectives. The purpose of the present study was to evaluate whether or not the PBM therapy has a positive effect around dental implants and on implant stability.

Material and methods. The studies included in the review and meta-analysis were selected according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and the PICOS criteria. The RoB 2 tool was used for assessing the risk of bias and the RevMan software, v. 5.0, was used for meta-analysis. Quantitative analysis was done considering the implant stability measurement as the outcome. The mean and standard deviation (M ±SD) values for implant stability as well as the sample size were extracted from the articles, and the inverse variance method with random effects was used for meta-analysis. The forest plots for all time intervals were inspected to estimate the heterogeneity by assessing the I2 statistic.

Results. A total of 148 articles were initially retrieved, out of which 81 remained after duplicate removal. Ten articles were included in the review after rejecting 68 on the basis of title and abstract. Seven were eligible for quantitative analysis. The meta-analysis showed non-significant differences in primary stability in control and laser groups at baseline (p = 0.63) and 3 months and above (p = 0.06). At 2 weeks, 1 month and 2 months, the results were statistically significant with p = 0.01, p = 0.02 and p = 0.04, respectively.

Conclusions. The PBM therapy showed a positive effect on implant stability during the early stages of healing and can be considered for patients with dental implants.

Keywords: photobiomodulation, implant stability, low-level laser, implant dentistry

Introduction

The most important factor to be considered in implant dentistry is the biologic union of the implant with the surrounding bone, which is termed osseointegration.1 The cascade of phenomena that occur during osseointegration includes the formation of a blood clot, angiogenesis, the apposition of bone, and finally the remodeling of the woven bone in the peri-implant area.2 Adequate implant stability plays a critical role in osseointegration. Both primary and secondary implant stability influences successful implant treatment, the former occurring due to the mechanical engagement of the implant into the bone, and the latter due to the remodeling and regeneration process during the healing phase.3 Various techniques have been advocated to improve implant stability as well as soft tissue healing around the dental implant, which in turn contributes to implant success.4, 5

Photobiomodulation (PBM) is a non-invasive, non-thermal therapy which through the use of low-level laser (LLL) stimulates cells to generate more energy and undergo self-repair. It involves the application of monochromatic light with a low energy density, which induces non-thermal photo­chemical effects on the cellular level.6 Photobiomodula­tion using low-level laser therapy (LLLT) with a low energy density stimulates the mitochondrial and cellular membrane photoreceptors to synthesize adenosine triphosphate (ATP), which in turn enhances the cell proliferation rate.7 It also increases the proliferation and differentiation of osteoblasts, thus having a bio-stimulatory effect on bone tissue.8 This potential role of PBM has been studied in the field of implant dentistry to improve implant stability, and overall hard and soft tissue healing around dental implants. Several in vitro and animal studies have suggested a positive effect of LLLT around the implant.9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 However, considering human stu­dies in the recent past, the effectiveness of the PBM therapy around dental implants has not been clearly shown. This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted on the basis of clinical studies to evaluate the qualitative and quantitative effect of PBM on implant stability.

Material and methods

The systematic review was conducted in accordance with the guidelines provided in the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement.15 The review protocol was registered under PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42021249393). The review question was specifically constructed following the PICOS criteria:

Population – male or female patients requiring the replacement of one or more missing teeth with dental implants;

Intervention – the PBM therapy around dental implants;

– Comparison – patients who did not receive PBM or any other adjunctive therapy around dental implants;

– Outcome – the effect of the PBM therapy on implant stability; and

– Study design – randomized controlled trials (RCTs), clinical trials.

The review question was “Does the PBM therapy in patients receiving dental implants have an effect on implant stability?”.

Search strategy

The search of electronic databases (PubMed, EBSCOhost, Cochrane, and Embase) was carried out by 2 investigators individually, without consulting one another. The following terms were searched in all databases: ‘dental implant’ OR ‘dental implants’ AND ‘photobiomodulation’ OR ‘low-level laser therapy’ OR ‘low-level laser’ OR ‘LLLT’ OR ‘laser therapy’ AND ‘primary stability’ OR ‘implant stability’ OR ‘dental implant stability’ OR ‘osseo­integration’. Also unpublished data was searched on ClinicalTrials.gov. The electronic databases were searched for articles published till April 2021. The EndNote software, v. 8.0 (https://endnote.com/downloads), was used to remove duplicates. The same software was used for the initial screening of the articles on the basis of their title and abstract. Eligible articles fulfilling the inclusion criteria were further assessed by accessing their full text from relevant sources. This was done individually by the 2 investigators considering the inclusion and exclusion criteria. A detailed assessment of all the citations and refe­rences was done thoroughly to widen the search. Any discrepancy between the 2 investigators was resolved by a third investigator. The inter-investigator reliability was assessed using the Cohen’s kappa score.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Randomized controlled trials and clinical studies that evaluated the effect of PBM using LLL and a diode laser on the conventionally or immediately placed dental implants were selected for the review. The exclusion criteria were as follows: animal studies; in vitro studies; case reports; reviews; books; and studies that involved extensive grafting and adjunctive procedures during implant placement, systemically ill patients, or the use of orthodontic or mini implants.

Quality assessment

The risk of bias assessment for all the included studies was carried out using the RoB 2 tool.16 According to the RoB 2 tool, 5 domains were taken into consideration to evaluate each article in terms of risk of bias, namely the randomization process, deviation from the intended intervention, missing outcome data, the measurement of the outcome, and the selection of the reported results. Accordingly, the risk of bias of the particular articles was classified as low, high or unclear.

Meta-analysis

The Review Manager software (RevMan, v. 5.4; the Cochrane Collaboration, 2020) (https://training.cochrane.org/online-learning/core-software/revman) was used for the quantitative assessment of eligible articles. The mean and standard deviation (M ±SD) values for implant stability as well as the sample size were extracted from the articles, and the inverse variance method with random effects was used for meta-analysis. Implant stability measurements were taken at baseline (immediately after implant placement), 14 days (1–2 weeks), 1 month (3–4 weeks), 2 months (5–8 weeks), and 3 months or more (9–12+ weeks) after implant placement. The forest plots for all time intervals were inspected to estimate the heterogeneity by assessing the I2 statistic, where I2 > 50% was moderate to high heterogeneity.17

Results

The initial search identified a total of 148 relevant articles from electronic databases, out of which 81 remained after the removal of duplicates. Out of this, 68 articles were excluded based on the exclusion criteria. At the end of the study selection, 10 articles were included for qualitative18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 and 7 for quantitative analysis.18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 27 The study screening and the selection of articles is explained in Figure 1. The inter-investigator reliability in the selection of articles was statistically evaluated using Cohen’s kappa analysis and a score of 0.97 was obtained.

All 10 articles raised some concerns as to the selection of the reported results (D5).18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 Four studies showed a low risk of bias with regard to the randomization process (D1), deviation from the intended intervention (D2), missing outcome data (D3), and the measurement of the outcome (D4).18, 20, 24, 27 The article by Memarian et al. showed an unclear risk of bias for all 5 domains (D1–D5).21 None of the articles in the review presented a high risk of bias (Figure 2).

Characteristics of the systematic review

All the articles included in the systematic review were clinical studies, and were published between 2012 and 2020. Three of the studies had a split-mouth design,18, 20, 21 while 7 had a case–control design.19, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27 The studies were conducted in Brazil,18, 24 Turkey,19 Serbia,20 Iran,21, 22, 26 Poland,23 Egypt,25 and India.27 A total of 381 dental implants were initially included in the studies, out of which 194 were in the laser group, while 187 acted as control. Males and females in the age group of 20–77 years were included. In 5 studies, implant placement was done in the mandible,18, 21, 23, 25, 27 while the maxilla was the implant site in 3 studies20, 22, 25; for 2 studies, the implant site was not defined.19, 24 Primary stability evaluation was the primary outcome of all but 2 studies, in which crestal bone loss was assessed.25, 27 The Osstell® ISQ (implant stability quotient) device was used to measure implant stability in the majority of studies.18, 19, 20, 22, 24, 26 In their study, Matys et al. calculated the periotest values (PTVs) for implant stability, and then inverted their signs to adapt them to the standard ISQ values used by other studies.23 Crevicular biochemical markers, i.e., interleukin 1 beta (IL-1β), transforming growth factor beta (TGF-β), prostaglandin E2 (PGE2), and nitric oxide were the secondary outcomes evaluated by Gokmenoglu et al.19 Alkaline phosphatase (ALP) and early implant success were evaluated by Mandić et al.,20 while IL-1β and PGE2 were recorded by Memarian et al.21 Bakry et al. assessed clinical parameters, including probing depth (PD) and the distance between the implant shoulder and the peri-implant mucosa (DIM).25 The evaluation period was different for all studies, and ranged from baseline to 1 year (Table 1).

The type of laser and protocol used for PBM is presented in Table 2. Diode lasers were used in all studies with a wavelength range of 626–980 nm. In their study, Memarian et al. used 2 diode lasers, one with a wavelength of 810 nm and the other with a wavelength of 626 nm, and compared the experimental groups with the control group.21 The time of laser application differed in the stu­dies, ranging from immediately after implant placement to 24 days after implant placement. However, in the stu­dies by Matys et al.23 and Bakry et al.,25 PBM was applied 1 day and 2 weeks before implant placement, respectively.

Meta-analysis

A meta-analysis was performed to evaluate the effect of the PBM therapy using LLL on implant stability. The analysis was divided into subgroups depending on the time of implant stability evaluation (Figure 3). All the 7 stu­dies included in the meta-analysis evaluated implant stability at baseline (immediately after implant placement), for which the result was statistically non-significant (p = 0.63).18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 26 Implant stability evaluation at 2 weeks, 1 month and 2 months was done by all18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 26 but Bittencourt Lobato et al., who evaluated implant stability at baseline and after 3 months only.24 The overall effect of the analysis calculated for all 3 subgroups was statistically significant with p = 0.01, p = 0.02 and p = 0.04, respectively. However, the analysis at 3 months showed statistically non-significant data (p = 0.06).

Heterogeneity was assessed for all time intervals. For implant stability at baseline, heterogeneity was non-significant (p = 0.50; I2 = 0%). Similarly, for 2 weeks, 1 month, 2 months, and 3 months there was non-significant heterogeneity with p = 0.11; I2 = 44%, p = 0.16; I2 = 37%, p = 0.15; I2 = 38%, and p = 0.21; I2 = 31%, respectively (Figure 3).

Discussion

There have been systematic reviews and meta-analyses evaluating the effect of the PBM therapy on osseointegration, crestal bone loss, and implant stability around orthodontic or mini implants, and even evaluating PBM as surface treatment around dental implants. However, reviews assessing the efficacy of LLLT or the PBM therapy around conventional dental implants in terms of implant stability are very few.28, 29, 30 This review was conducted to evaluate the effect of the PBM therapy on implant stabi­lity. Various methods are used to assess implant stability, such as insertion torque values, the reverse torque test, the percussion test, ISQ, and PTVs.31 Among these, the most reliable are ISQ and PTVs, which were used in the studies included in the present meta-analysis.18, 19, 20, 22, 23, 24, 26

The PBM therapy using LLL has shown positive effects in studies done on implants in animals.9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 This review focused on clinical trials only. Five out of 10 studies in the review concluded that the PBM therapy had no effect around dental implants.18, 20, 22, 24, 25 Statistically non-significant differences were observed for implant stability as well as ALP activity around dental implants in the study by Mandić et al.20 However, when evaluating the recorded outcome variables in this study, the laser group had higher values at the end of the study for both implant stability and ALP activity.20 This phenomenon can be correlated with the relationship between LLLT stimulation and the tissue stem cells reacting to it, inducing the new formation and healing of the peri-implant soft tissues and the peri-implant bone.32 Similar results were found in the studies by Torkzaban et al.22 and Bittencourt Lobato et al.,24 even though the observed differences were not statistically significant. The pooled result of all the studies included in the meta-analysis showed a positive effect of the PBM therapy on dental implant stability in contrast to the other systematic review results. Crestal bone loss was evaluated by 2 studies; Bakry et al. concluded that the PBM therapy had no effect,25 while Gulati et al. showed a positive effect.27

No homogeneity was found in the laser parameters used in the different studies included in the review. This may be one of the reasons for the discrepancy in the results of the studies. A laser of a higher wavelength benefits, as it penetrates deeper into the tissues and has a positive osteogenic effect.33 Considering all the studies included in this review and their results, a standardized protocol for the PBM therapy using LLL around dental implants must be implemented.

Limitations

The current review consisted of 10 articles which were eligible for qualitative analysis, and 7 out of them were selected for quantitative analysis. This number is relatively small for a review, which is due to the fact that the topic is new and still under modification. Future research in this field should be considered for a review in the future.

Conclusions

The PBM therapy using LLL shows a positive effect on implant stability at different intervals, especially during the early stages of healing, and is worth considering for patients with dental implants. The need of the hour is to develop and test a standardized laser protocol for the PBM therapy to improve tissue around dental implants. With laser becoming one of the most popular modalities in clinical dentistry and being available to many clinical setups now, its use to enhance implant stability and healing can be of great benefit in implant dentistry.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Data availability

All data analyzed during this study is included in this published article.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Tables


Table 1. Characteristics of the included studies

Study

Country

Study design

Number
of implants

Average age
[years]

Sex

Implant site

Implant producer

Bone type

Outcome

Evaluation time

Study conclusion

M

F

García-Morales
et al.
2012

Brazil

SM

29

LG (15)
CG (14)

36

2

6

posterior mandible

Dentsply,
Mannheim,
Germany

implant stability
(Osstell ISQ device)

immediately,
10 days, and
3, 6, 9, and 12 weeks postoperatively

no effect

Gokmenoglu
et al.
2014

Turkey

CC

22

LG (10)
CG (12)

48

9

6

Dentsply,
Mannheim,
Germany

type 2
or 3

implant stability
(Osstell ISQ device)

immediately, and
2, 4, 8, and 12 weeks postoperatively

positive effect

IL-1β, TGF-β, PGE2, and nitric oxide

4 and 12 weeks postoperatively

Mandić
et al.
2015

Serbia

SM

40

LG (20)
CG (20)

61

6

6

posterior maxilla

Bredent,
Senden,
Germany

implant stability
(Osstell ISQ device)

immediately, and
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 weeks postoperatively

no effect

PICF

7, 14, 21, and 28 days postoperatively

early implant success

6 weeks postoperatively

Memarian
et al.
2018

Iran

SM

36

LG (12)
LG (12)
CG (12)

anterior mandible

Dio,
Busan,
South Korea

type 2
or 3

implant stability
(PTVs)

at the day
of surgery, and
3, 4 and 8 weeks after surgery

positive effect

inflammatory biomarkers

4 and 8 weeks postoperatively

Torkzaban
et al.
2018

Iran

CC

80

LG (40)
CG (40)

42

9

10

maxilla

Dio,
Busan,
South Korea

D3
and D4

implant stability
(Osstell ISQ device)

immediately,
10 days, and
3, 6 and 12 weeks postoperatively

no effect

Matys
et al.
2019

Poland

CC

40

LG (18)
CG (22)

47

16

8

posterior mandible

SuperLine

Dentium,
Cypress,
USA

D2

implant stability
(PTVs)

immediately,
2 and 4 weeks, and
2 and 3 months postoperatively

positive effect

Bittencourt Lobato
et al.
2019

Brazil

CC

46

LG (23)
CG (23)

51

Straumann
Basel,
Switzerland

implant stability
(Osstell ISQ device)

immediately and at the abutment selection phase

no effect

Bakry
et al.
2020

Egypt

CC

12

LG (6)
CG (6)

40

posterior maxilla

Zimmer Dental,
Carlsbad,
USA

crestal bone level (RVG)

immediately, and
2,12 and 26 weeks postoperatively

no effect

clinical parameters

immediately, and 2,12 and 26 weeks postoperatively

Mohajerani
et al.
2020

Iran

CC

56

LG (28)
CG (28)

38

32

26

posterior mandible

Zimmer Dental,
Carlsbad,
USA

implant stability
(Osstell ISQ device)

immediately, and
10, 21, 42, and 63 days postoperatively

positive effect

Gulati
et al.
2020

India

CC

20

LG (10)
CG (10)

35

13

7

posterior mandible

Adin Dental,
Bielsko-Biała,
Poland

type 2
or 3

crestal bone level (IOPA)

immediately,
6 weeks and
6 months following prosthesis loading, and
at 1 year

positive effect

CBCT

immediately and
at 1 year

M – male; F – female; SM – split-mouth; CC – case–control; LG – laser group; CG – control group; ISQ – implant stability quotient; IL-1β – interleukin 1 beta; TGF-β – transforming growth factor beta; PGE2 – prostaglandin E2; PICF – -peri-implant crevicular fluid; PTVs – periotest values; RVG – radiovisiography; IOPA – intraoral periapical radiograph; CBCT – cone-beam computed tomography.
Table 2. Specifications of the lasers used in the included studies

Study

Laser

Laser specifications

Dosage

García-Morales
et al.
2012

GaAlAs diode LLL
Thera Lase Surgery;
DMC,
São Carlos, Brazil

wavelength: 830 nm
mode: contact mode
power: 86 ±2 mW
laser spot size: 0.0028 cm
2
energy density: 92.1 J/cm
2
irradiation time per point: 3 s
total points: 20 points (9 at the vestibular, 9 at the lingual,
1 at the distal, and 1 at the mesial region of the implant)
total energy per session: 8 J

immediately, and
2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, and 14 days postoperatively

Gokmenoglu
et al.
2014

Osseopulse AR 300;
Biolux Research,
Vancouver, Canada

wavelength: 626 nm
mode: contact mode (extraoral)
power: 185 mW
laser spot size: 4.80 cm
2
energy density: 46.2 J/cm
2
average intensity: 38.5 mW/cm
2
irradiation time: 20 min
total energy per session: 222 J

immediately, and
1, 2 and 3 weeks
(3 times per week) postoperatively

Mandić
et al.
2015

GaAlAs laser
Medicolaser 637;
Technoline,
Belgrade, Serbia

wavelength: 637 nm
mode: non-contact mode (extraoral)
power: 40 mW
energy density: 6.26 J/cm²

every 24 h for 7 days postoperatively

Memarian
et al.
2018

diode laser
Doctor Smile;
Lambda,
Brendola, Italy

wavelength: 810 nm
mode: contact mode
power: 50 mW
laser spot size: 1cm
2
irradiation time: 400 s

immediately, and
3, 7, 10, and 14 days postoperatively

Osseopulse AR 300;
Biolux Research,
Vancouver, Canada

wavelength: 626 nm
mode: contact mode (extraoral)
power: 185 mW
laser spot size: 4.80 cm
2
energy density: 46.2 J/cm²
average intensity: 38.5 mW/cm
2
irradiation time: 20 min

immediately, and
3, 7, 10, and 14 days postoperatively

Torkzaban
et al.
2018

Epic 10;
Biolase,
Irvine, USA

wavelength: 940 nm
mode: contact mode
power: 100 mW
laser spot size: 0.2826 cm
2
average energy density: 14.18 J/cm
2
average power density: 354.6 mW/cm
2
irradiation time per point: 40 s
total points: 2 points (at the buccal and palatal sites of the implant)
total energy per session: 8 J

2, 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12 days postoperatively

Matys
et al.
2019

red diode laser
Smart M;
Lasotronix,
Piaseczno, Poland

wavelength: 635 nm
mode: contact mode
power: 100 mW
laser spot size: 0.5024cm
2
average power density: 99.04 mW/cm
2
irradiation time per point: 40 s
total points: 2 points (at the buccal and lingual sites of the implant)
total energy per session: 8 J

1 day preoperatively,
immediately, and
2, 4, 7, and 14 days postoperatively

Bittencourt Lobato
et al.
2019

GaAlAs diode laser
Therapy XT;
DMC,
Sao Carlos, Brazil

wavelength: 808 nm
power: 50 mW
laser spot size: 0.4 cm
2
irradiation time per point: 1.23 min
total points: 6 points (2 at the labial, 2 at the lingual
and 2 at the occlusal site of the implant)
total energy per session: 66 J

immediately after implant placement

Bakry
et al.
2020

diode laser
Smart M Pro;
Lasotronix,
Piaseczno, Poland

wavelength: 980 nm
mode: contact mode
power: 2 W
irradiation time: 5 min
frequency: 300 Hz

2 weeks before implant placement, and
2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 22, and 24 days postoperatively

Mohajerani
et al.
2020

wavelength: 830 nm (laser) + 632 nm (LED)
power: 10 mW
laser spot size: 0.0015 cm
2
irradiation time: 20 min

every day for 10 days postoperatively

Gulati
et al.
2020

Photon Plus;
Zolar Technology
& Mfg Co. Inc.,
Mississauga, Canada

wavelength: 980 nm
power: 0.1 W
laser spot size: 0.25 cm
2
energy density: 4 J/cm
2
irradiation time per point: 10 s
total points: 6 points (at the mesiobuccal, distobuccal, midbuccal, midlingual, mesial, and distal areas)
total energy per session: 6 J

immediately following osteotomy and prior to implant placement, and
3, 7 and 14 days postoperatively

GaAlAs – gallium aluminum arsenide.

Figures


Fig. 1. PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) flowchart of the screening process
Fig. 2. Quality assessment of the included studies with the use of the RoB 2 tool
LLLT – low-level laser therapy; LED – light emitting diode; PBM – photobiomodulation; LLL – low-level laser.
Fig. 3. Forest plots of dental implant stability for experimental (laser) and control groups at baseline, 2 weeks, 1 month, 2 months, and 3 months and above
M – mean; SD – standard deviation; SMD – standardized mean difference; CI – confidence interval; df – degrees of freedom.

References (33)

  1. Mikhail FF, Eldin M, Ibrahim T, Zekry K, Nemat A, Nasry S. Effect of laser therapy on the osseointegration of immediately loaded dental implants in patients under vitamin C, omega-3 and calcium therapy. Open Access Maced J Med Sci. 2018;6(8):1468–1474. doi:10.3889/oamjms.2018.291
  2. Swami V, Vijayaraghavan V, Swami V. Current trends to measure implant stability. J Indian Prosthodont Soc. 2016;16(2):124–130. doi:10.4103/0972-4052.176539
  3. Lioubavina-Hack N, Lang NP, Karring T. Significance of primary stability for osseointegration of dental implants. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2006;17(3):244–250. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0501.2005.01201.x
  4. Kwiatek J, Jaroń A, Trybek G. Impact of the 25-hydroxycholecalciferol concentration and vitamin D deficiency treatment on changes in the bone level at the implant site during the process of osseointegration: A prospective, randomized, controlled clinical trial. J Clin Med. 2021;10(3):526. doi:10.3390/jcm10030526
  5. Guarnieri R, Miccoli G, Reda R, Mazzoni A, Di Nardo D, Testarelli L. Laser microgrooved vs. machined healing abutment disconnection/reconnection: A comparative clinical, radiographical and biochemical study with split-mouth design. Int J Implant Dent. 2021;7(1):19. doi:10.1186/s40729-021-00301-6
  6. Schindl A, Schindl M, Pernerstorfer-Schön H, Schindl L. Low-intensity laser therapy: A review. J Investig Med. 2000;48(5):312–326. PMID:10979236.
  7. AlGhamdi KM, Kumar A, Moussa NA. Low-level laser therapy: A useful technique for enhancing the proliferation of various cultured cells. Lasers Med Sci. 2012;27(1):237–249. doi:10.1007/s10103-011-0885-2
  8. Amid R, Kadkhodazadeh M, Ahsaie MG, Hakakzadeh A. Effect of low level laser therapy on proliferation and differentiation of the cells contributing in bone regeneration. J Lasers Med Sci. 2014;5(4):163–170. PMID:25653816. PMCID:PMC4281990.
  9. Khadra M, Rønold HJ, Lyngstadaas SP, Ellingsen JE, Haanaes HR. Low-level laser therapy stimulates bone–implant interaction: An experimental study in rabbits. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2004;15(3):325–332. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0501.2004.00994.x
  10. Pereira CL, Sallum EA, Nociti FH Jr., Fernandes Moreira RW. The effect of low-intensity laser therapy on bone healing around titanium implants: A histometric study in rabbits. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2009;24(1):47–51. PMID:19344024.
  11. Maluf AP, Maluf RP, da Rocha Brito C, Gomes França FM, de Brito RB Jr. Mechanical evaluation of the influence of low-level laser therapy in secondary stability of implants in mice shinbones. Lasers Med Sci. 2010;25(5):693–698. doi:10.1007/s10103-010-0778-9
  12. Lopes CB, Pinheiro AL, Sathaiah S, Da Silva NS, Salgado MA. Infrared laser photobiomodulation (lambda 830 nm) on bone tissue around dental implants: A Raman spectroscopy and scanning electronic microscopy study in rabbits. Photomed Laser Surg. 2007;25(2):96–101. doi:10.1089/pho.2006.2030
  13. Primo BT, da Silva RC, Grossmann E, Quevedo Miguens SA Jr., Gonzalez Hernandez PA, Silva AN Jr. Effect of surface roughness and low-level laser therapy on removal torque of implants placed in rat femurs. J Oral Implantol. 2013;39(5):533–538. doi:10.1563/AAID-JOI-D-10-00141
  14. Massotti FP, Gomes FV, Mayer L, et al. Histomorphometric assessment of the influence of low-level laser therapy on peri-implant tissue healing in the rabbit mandible. Photomed Laser Surg. 2015;33(3):123–128. doi:10.1089/pho.2014.3792
  15. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG; PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Int J Surg. 2010;8(5):336–341. doi:10.1016/j.ijsu.2010.02.007
  16. Sterne JA, Savović J, Page MJ, et al. RoB 2: A revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2019;366:l4898. doi:10.1136/bmj.l4898
  17. Ioannidis JP, Patsopoulos NA, Evangelou E. Uncertainty in heterogeneity estimates in meta-analyses. BMJ. 2007;335(7626):914–946. doi:10.1136/bmj.39343.408449.80
  18. García-Morales JM, Tortamano-Neto P, Todescan FF, de Andrade JC Jr., Marotti J, Zezell DM. Stability of dental implants after irradiation with an 830-nm low-level laser: A double-blind randomized clinical study. Lasers Med Sci. 2012;27(4):703–711. doi:10.1007/s10103-011-0948-4
  19. Gokmenoglu C, Ozmeric N, Erguder I, Elgun S. The effect of light-emitting diode photobiomodulation on implant stability and biochemical markers in peri-implant crevicular fluid. Photomed Laser Surg. 2014;32(3):138–145. doi:10.1089/pho.2012.3473
  20. Mandić B, Lazić Z, Marković A, et al. Influence of postoperative low-level laser therapy on the osseointegration of self-tapping implants in the posterior maxilla: A 6-week split-mouth clinical study. Vojnosanit Pregl. 2015;72(3):233–240. doi:10.2298/vsp131202075m
  21. Memarian J, Ketabi M, Amini S. The effect of low-level laser 810 nm and light-emitting diode photobiomodulation (626 nm) on the stability of the implant and inflammatory markers interleukin-1 beta and prostaglandin E2, around implants. Dent Res J (Isfahan). 2018;15(4):283–288. PMID:30123306. PMCID:PMC6073945.
  22. Torkzaban P, Kasraei S, Torabi S, Farhadian M. Low-level laser therapy with 940 nm diode laser on stability of dental implants: A randomized controlled clinical trial. Lasers Med Sci. 2018;33(2):287–293. doi:10.1007/s10103-017-2365-9
  23. Matys J, Świder K, Grzech-Leśniak K, Dominiak M, Romeo U. Photobiomodulation by a 635nm diode laser on peri-implant bone: Primary and secondary stability and bone density analysis – a randomized clinical trial. Biomed Res Int. 2019;2019:2785302. doi:10.1155/2019/2785302
  24. Bittencourt Lobato RP, de Azevedo Kinalski M, Martins TM, Agostini BA, Bergoli CD, Fernandes Dos Santos MB. Influence of low-level laser therapy on implant stability in implants placed in fresh extraction sockets: A randomized clinical trial. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2020;22:261–269. doi:10.1111/cid.12904
  25. Bakry SA, Kamel HM. Evaluation of crestal bone changes around delayed implant in response to diode laser therapy: A randomized controlled clinical trial. Egypt Dent J. 2020;66(2):841–851. doi:10.21608/EDJ.2020.24407.1039
  26. Mohajerani H, Salehi AM, Tabeie F, Shafiei S, Tabrizi R. Can low-level laser and light-emitting diode enhance the stability of dental implants? J Maxillofac Oral Surg. 2020;19(2):302–306. doi:10.1007/s12663-019-01210-3
  27. Gulati P, Kumar M, Issar G, Thakral A. Effect of low level laser therapy on crestal bone levels around dental implants – a pilot study. Clin Implant Dent Relat Res. 2020;22(6):739–746. doi:10.1111/cid.12957
  28. Prados-Frutos JC, Rodríguez-Molinero J, Prados-Privado M, Torres JH, Rojo R. Lack of clinical evidence on low-level laser therapy (LLLT) on dental titanium implant: A systematic review. Lasers Med Sci. 2016;31(2):383–392. doi:10.1007/s10103-015-1860-0
  29. Chen Y, Liu C, Chen X, Mo A. Clinical evidence of photobiomodulation therapy (PBMT) on implant stability and success: A systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Oral Health. 2019;19(1):77. doi:10.1186/s12903-019-0779-4
  30. Zayed SM, Abdel Hakim AA. Clinical efficacy of photobiomodulation on dental implant osseointegration: A systematic review. Saudi J Med Med Sci. 2020;8(2):80–86. doi:10.4103/sjmms.sjmms_410_19
  31. Atsumi M, Park SH, Wang HL. Methods used to assess implant stability: Current status. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2007;22(5):743–754. PMID:17974108.
  32. Sayed ME, Mugri MH, Almasri MA, et al. Role of stem cells in augmenting dental implant osseointegration: A systematic review. Coatings. 2021;11(9):1035. doi:10.3390/coatings11091035
  33. Pinheiro AL. Advances and perspectives on tissue repair and healing. Photomed Laser Surg. 2009;27(6):833–836. doi:10.1089/pho.2009.2716