The Journal of Indian Prosthodontic Society

: 2020  |  Volume : 20  |  Issue : 4  |  Page : 353--362

Efficacy of different lasers of various wavelengths in treatment of peri-implantitis and peri-implant mucositis: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Ritu Saneja1, Bappaditya Bhattacharjee1, Atul Bhatnagar1, P G Naveen Kumar2, Arju Verma1,  
1 Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dental Sciences, Institute of Medical Sciences, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh, India
2 Department of Public Health Dentistry, Faculty of Dental Sciences, Institute of Medical Sciences, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh, India

Correspondence Address:
Dr. P G Naveen Kumar
Department of Public Health Dentistry, Faculty of Dental Sciences, Institute of Medical Sciences, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi - 221 005, Uttar Pradesh


Aim: Peri implant diseases lead to pathological changes in the peri implant tissues and loss of osseointegration. The purpose of this analysis is to evaluate the effect of various lasers and photodynamic therapy (PDT) on peri implant diseases compared to conventional procedures. Setting and Design: This meta analysis was conducted as per the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta Analyses guidelines. Materials and Methods: A systematic search of the electronic databases such as PubMed, ICTRP,, Embase, and Cochrane Library was done additional to manual search of peer review article on peri-implant diseases. Eleven randomized control clinical trials were included in which laser therapy and PDT were used as an interventional procedure. Results and Statistical Analysis Used: Review Manager 5.03 (RevMan, Nordic Cochrane Center, Copenhagen, Denmark), and random effects model were used to assess mean difference (MD). Bivariate differential mean statistic was used in intergroup estimate with 95% confidence interval (CI). I2 test statistics was applied for heterogenity and P < 0.05 was considered significant statistically. The literature search yielded a total of 113 articles among which 11 articles were included for quantitative analysis. The selected outcome PD reported MD −0.01 with 95% CI (−0.13, 0.16), P = 0.84, and CAL reported MD −0.09 with 95% CI (−0.32, 0.14), P = 0.45, respectively. Conclusion: Laser treatment as an adjunctive therapy or monotherapy in peri implantitis does not show any superior effects than conventional measures as per evidence. However, cases with peri implant mucositis have shown far more promising results with laser therapy compared to peri implantitis.

How to cite this article:
Saneja R, Bhattacharjee B, Bhatnagar A, Kumar P G, Verma A. Efficacy of different lasers of various wavelengths in treatment of peri-implantitis and peri-implant mucositis: A systematic review and meta-analysis.J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2020;20:353-362

How to cite this URL:
Saneja R, Bhattacharjee B, Bhatnagar A, Kumar P G, Verma A. Efficacy of different lasers of various wavelengths in treatment of peri-implantitis and peri-implant mucositis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Indian Prosthodont Soc [serial online] 2020 [cited 2020 Nov 24 ];20:353-362
Available from:

Full Text


Implants have become the treatment of choice in many, if not most, situations when missing teeth require replacement.[1] However, implants are not without potential problems. A tangible number of implants do not integrate or do not survive for long-term function.[2] Complications and loss of implants can be costly, both in terms of time and financial resources. Loss of integration can be troublesome, resulting in an edentulous space more difficult to restore.[3] Stability of bone support for the implants is an important criterion for determining success.[4],[5]

Among the various failures that endosseous implants experience, 10% of the failures have been attributed to peri-implantitis. Bacterial invasion of the peri-implant tissues results in soft-tissue inflammatory changes and rapid bone loss.[6]

Among peri-implant diseases, peri-implant mucositis is a reversible condition with no loss of attachment or bone loss in the coronal/apical portion of the implant, but the process of peri-implantitis begins at the coronal aspect of the implant, whereas the more apical portion remains clinically stable (osseointegrated).[7],[8],[9],[10]

The major clinical parameters used to diagnose peri-implant inflammation include the assessment of the presence of dental plaque, bleeding on gentle probing, suppuration, peri-implant probing depth (PD), and evidence of radiographic bone loss.[10],[11],[12] Depending on the clinical features and eventually the radiographic diagnosis, a protocol of therapeutic measures has been designed to head off the development of peri-implant lesions.[13],[14],[15],[16] This system is cumulative in nature and includes four steps as a sequence of therapeutic procedures. Supportive therapy which is part of cumulative protocol includes mechanical debridement, debridement using chemotherapeutic agents, and laser therapy.[17],[18],[19]

Results from variousin vitro andin vivo studies have shown that CO2, diode, and erbium-doped yttrium aluminum garnet (Er:YAG) lasers can be effective in reducing microbial load around implant surfaces. These lasers showed no adverse effects on titanium surfaces and any major increase in temperature on surrounding implant surfaces if proper settings are applied.[20],[21],[22]

Lots of literature has been published regarding the efficacy of laser therapy on peri-implant diseases. Therefore, qualitative and quantitative assessments of the scientific data are important to generate a scientific evidence on the use of laser in peri-implant diseases.[21],[22],[23] Previously, Kotsakis et al. assessed data from January 1990 to June 2013 regarding the use of laser therapy on peri-implantitis and formulated a systemic review and meta-analysis to assess the efficacy.[24] From 2013 onward, laser has evolved continuously as an emerging treatment modality in different fields of dentistry. Despite this, published data in between 2013 and 2020 had not been assessed to evaluate the success of different lasers of different wavelengths in the treatment outcome of peri-implant diseases (peri-implantitis and peri-implant mucositis). Therefore, the aim of this systemic review is to assess the efficacy of laser therapy as an adjunctive or primary therapy in the treatment of peri-implantitis and peri-implant mucositis. Thus, the Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes, and Study (PICOS) question was formulated as follows “what is the role of laser as a primary or as an adjunctive treatment modality in comparison with the one treated with only conventional surgical or nonsurgical treatment protocols in reducing PD and increasing clinical attachment level (CAL) in patients having peri-implant diseases?”

 Materials and Methods

This systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted as per Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.


The purpose of this present systemic review is to check the effect of application of laser or photodynamic therapy (PDT) on peri-implant diseases in comparison with conventional debridement procedures. The study follows the PRISMA format guidelines and meta-analyses statement.[25]

Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Eligibility criteria were determined before the literature search was performed. PD and CAL were included as outcome parameters for peri-implant diseases.

The inclusion criteria were as follows:

Randomized controlled clinical trialsOutcome parameters for peri-implant diseases must include PD and CALStudies using laser or PDT as an interventional procedurePublished articles from the year 2000 to 2020.

The exclusion criteria were as follows:

Prospective and retrospective studiesAnimal studies,in vitro studies, and literature reviewsStudies including smokers as sampleStudies with incomplete data.

The focus question was formulated following the PICOS format

Population: Patients having peri-implantitis and peri-implant mucositis surrounding dental implantsIntervention: Lasers used as a primary or adjunctive therapyComparison: Conventional surgical or nonsurgical therapies for peri-implant diseasesOutcome: PD and clinical attachment level around dental implantsStudy design: Randomized controlled clinical trials.

The question according to PICOS can be explained as “what is the role of laser as a primary or as an adjunctive treatment modality in comparison with the one treated with only conventional surgical or nonsurgical treatment protocols in reducing PD and increasing CAL in patients having peri-implant diseases?”

Information sources

Published literatures between 2000 and 2020 were searched in the following databases MEDLINE, PubMed, ICTRP,, Embase, and Cochrane Library. The search was conducted between January and February 2020 by two independent reviewers (RS and BB). Electronic search was also done in Rajiv Gandhi Health University Library for additional articles. In addition, a manual search was made of the literature by reviewing the references in the articles found in the electronic search. Additional hand search was done from gray literature or unpublished studies.

Search strategy

The following keywords were used: “laser,” “laser therapy,” “photodynamic therapy,” “peri-implant diseases,” “peri-implantitis,” “peri-implant mucositis,” “randomized controlled clinical trial,” and “therapeutic aids.” The keywords were combined with Boolean operators OR and AND. Literature search was limited to human studies and English languages only.

Data analysis

The data were extracted by two independent reviewers from all the included studies, and in case of any disagreement, consultation of the third reviewer was taken and filled into predetermined forms. The form consisted of two parts: basic information and main outcome. The first part was about basic information such as author name, year of study, sample size and characteristics, interventions, follow-up period, dropout, and confounding factor (if present). The second part was about clinical outcomes including PD and CAL of intervention group treated with laser or PDT as a primary or adjunctive therapy and control group.

Quality assessment of studies included

Recommendations of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement were used for assessing the risk of bias across the studies.[26] Assessment of risk of bias for individual study was done using the Cochrane's tool for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.[27] The scoring systems including “yes,” “no,” or “unclear” were recorded for individual studies that had “low risk of bias,” “high risk of bias,” or “unclear risk of bias,” respectively. Overall, the studies were considered “high quality” if all conditions met, “low quality” if ≥1 condition did not meet, or “moderate quality” if ≥1 condition was partly met.

Statistical analysis

For meta-analysis, after inclusion of articles and identification of outcome variables, the software Review Manager 5.03 (RevMan, Nordic Cochrane Center, Copenhagen, Denmark) was used. Bivariant differential mean statistic was applied for intergroup estimate (laser therapy versus conventional therapy) with 95% confidence interval (CI) to measure outcome mean. Random-effects model with inverse-variance statistics was used. To identify study heterogeneity, I2 test statistics were applied (I2I2 value 50%–75% – serious heterogeneity), and P < 0.05 was considered significant statistically. Forest plots were produced for the outcome variables with 95% CI and overall treatment effects and subgroup effects at a significance level of 0.05. Funnel plot asymmetry was checked to report any publication bias.

The extracted data were stratified and tabulated according to chronological order.

Information related to various characteristics of the included studies was described as a summary-like format to enumerate the information.


Study selection

The literature search yielded a total of 113 articles from various electronic databases and journals. After removal of the duplicates (n = 87), initial screening of titles and abstracts was performed by two independent reviewers (RS and BB). In this stage, 12 articles were excluded by screening titles and abstracts. A total of 14 articles were selected for full-text reading;[28],[29],[30],[31],[32],[33],[34],[35],[36],[37],[38],[39],[40],[41],[42],[43] of these 14 articles, 11 studies[28],[29],[30],[31],[32],[33],[34],[35],[36],[37],[38] were included for quantitative analysis and data extraction and 3 studies were excluded due to various reasons.[41],[42],[43] We excluded three randomized control trials for the following reasons [Table 1]: one of the studies used prospective study design,[41] Zeza et al. used experimental study design,[43] and Renvert et al. had the same study sample and study design as Renvert et al.[42] Any disagreement between the reviewers was solved by discussion. [Figure 1] illustrates the study identification flowchart according to the PRISMA guidelines.{Table 1}{Figure 1}

Study characteristics

All the included studies in this systematic review and meta-analyses were randomized controlled clinical trials and are, therefore, defined by the National Health and Medical Research Council guidelines as level of evidence II.[44] Risk of bias assessment for individual studies was done using the Cochrane's tool for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.[27] [Table 2] represents the result of risk of bias assessment for each of the trials. Although all studies described randomization, five studies did not adequately describe how sequence generation for randomization was done. Two studies did not mention about the blinding procedure.[30],[31] Four studies were classified as having low risk of bias due to adequate reporting of randomization technique, sequence generation, blinding, and patients' withdrawal.[29],[33],[34],[38] Four trials were classified as moderate depending on Cochrane tool of analysis of risk of bias[28],[30],[32],[35] and three studies had a high risk of bias.[30],[36],[37]{Table 2}

Characteristics of the outcome data

The included 11 clinical trials were conducted in 6 different countries and included 629 participants (312 in the control group and 317 in the test group). [Table 3] shows the details of study population, intervention, follow-up time, and any confounding factor if present in the studies. [Table 4] represents the outcome and data assessment of the studies. The test group can be divided into various subgroups depending on the type of laser therapy applied, and outcomes measured in this analysis were PD and CAL.{Table 3}{Table 4}

Diode laser

Three clinical trials used diode laser as treatment modality.[36],[37],[38] Aimetti et al. compared the diode laser therapy in the treatment of peri-implant mucositis with mechanical debridement (ultrasonic and manual instrumentation).[38] The wavelength of 980 nm diode laser was applied in apicocoronal and mesiodistal direction of the implants for 30 s with 300 μ optical fiber placed parallel to the long axis of the implant. Both therapeutic modalities showed similar clinical improvement with reduction in PD value at 3 months, but there was no statistically significant clinical benefit obtained with laser therapy compared to mechanical debridement only. The clinical signs of the inflammation reduced more in the laser group after 1 month, but no long-term benefits were found. A study done by Sánchez-Martos et al. used diode laser as an adjunctive therapy in peri-implant mucositis along with mechanical and chemical debridement in the test group.[37] On re-evaluation at 6 weeks, statistically significant differences were observed between the test and control groups in relation to PD. Papadopoulos et al. used diode laser in the study along with surgical open-flap debridement and concluded that additional use of diode laser offered limited clinical benefit as results were nonsignificant between the study group and the test group.[36]

Erbium-doped yttrium aluminum garnet laser

Six clinical trials reported the results of Er:YAG laser therapy as an adjunctive therapy or monotherapy. Persson et al. used Er:YAG laser as monotherapy treatment modality in the test group and abrasive therapy in the control group.[34] No statistically significant difference was found between the test and control groups regarding PD and bleeding on probing. However, the air abrasive group showed a greater reduction of pathogenic microflora compared to the laser group. Three studies utilized the same approach for 6 months, 24 months, and 48 months, respectively, using Er:YAG device with mechanical debridement using plastic curette, cotton pellet, and sterile saline in test groups.[31],[32],[33] These approaches were applied after treating all the cases with open-flap surgery. At 6th and 24th months, there was no statistically significant increase of CAL and reduction of PD, but at 48 months, the control group showed an increase in CAL values.

The other two studies utilized the nonsurgical approach, Er:YAG laser therapy was used as monotherapy in the test group, and in the control group, mechanical debridement using plastic curettes followed by antiseptic rinse was done with 0.2% chlorhexidine gluconate.[30],[35] Results from the studies suggested that there was a significant increase in the test group in CAL values at 6 months, but at 12 months, there was no significant difference in relation to reduction of PD and increase of CAL values.

Photodynamic therapy

Two clinical trials used PDT as treatment modality for peri-implantitis management.[28],[29] In PDT, dye phenothiazine chloride combined with laser (wavelength 660 nm) was applied in pocket surrounding implants and left in situ for 3 min, subsequently, pocket was irrigated with 3% H2O2, and PDT therapy was repeated 1 week later. The control group received minocycline hydrochloride microspheres adjuvant with 3% hydrogen peroxide irrigation. PD and CAL values were relatively the same after treatment in both the groups in 6 months and 12 months.

Results of meta-analysis

Test for funnel plot asymmetry [Figure 2] showing both positive and negative trials is included in this study as studies are present on both the sides of the vertical line. The main outcomes of this study are presented in [Table 4]. Forest plots [Figure 3], [Figure 4], [Figure 5] show that there is no statistically significant evidence in treatment effects of laser therapy in reduction of PD and in increase of CAL in comparison to conventional debridement procedures (forest plot 1 – mean difference [MD]: 0.01, 95% CI: −0.13–0.1, P = 0.84; forest plot 2 – MD: −0.09, 95% CI: −0.32–0.14, P = 0.45).{Figure 2}{Figure 3}{Figure 4}{Figure 5}


The dental implants have shown long term success, but treatment with dental implants is also not without failures. Improper treatment planning, failure to identify the risk factors, and improper maintenance phase can lead to inflammation around the implants.[45] The pathogenesis of peri implantitis is quite similar to periodontitis of natural teeth. In both types of diseases, there is an occurrence of biofilm formation with high concentration of bacteria. However, implant associated biofilm contains more number of Staphylococcus aureus and Actinomyces species. Various risk factors for peri implantitis include previous periodontal diseases, poor plaque control, residual cement, smoking, genetic factors, and uncontrolled systemic diseases like diabetes mellitus. The treatment therapy used for peri implantitis can be broadly classified into two types:


Nonsurgical treatment includes various modalities such as local debridement, air abrasion, drug therapy, laser therapy, and newer modality called PDT. However, surgical treatments include resective surgery, regenerative surgery, and implantoplasty.[46],[47]

The new treatment modality PDT generates reactive oxygen with the help of laser and photosensitizer like toluidine blue. This therapy uses a diode laser in the range of 580–1400 nm and toluidine blue with concentration between 10 and 50 μg/ml to produce bactericidal effect against aerobic and anaerobic bacteria. PDT is said to be effective against bacterial species such as Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans, Streptococcus mutans, Porphyromonas gingivalis, Prevotella intermedia, and Enterococcus faecalis.

In this systematic review, included studies[28],[29],[30],[31],[32],[33],[34],[35],[36],[37],[38]have used various nonsurgical or surgical treatment modalities. Out of nine studies on peri-implantitis, four studies used a surgical approach[31],[32],[33],[36] and five studies[28],[29],[30],[34],[35] used a nonsurgical approach.

Three included studies used the same study design and sample but varying in duration of the study.. Initially, the test group which was given laser therapy along with surgical approach showed improved result with reduction in mean bleeding on probing and CAL values than the control group, but this result was not sustained in later follow-up period. After 48 months, the control group showed greater improvement than the test group and reduced inflammation around implants.

One more study,[36] which used surgical approach, concluded that additional use of laser therapy showed limited clinical benefit. There was no statistically significant difference between the two groups in terms of outcome variables.

In studies using nonsurgical approaches, two of the five studies showed a moderate reduction in BOP (bleeding on probing) values in the laser group than the test group only for 6 months.[28],[29],[30],[31],[32],[33] No statistically significant difference was found in PD and CAL values between both the groups after 6 months. Bassetti et al.[28] used PDT and observed a significant reduction in PD values in sites receiving PDT till 9 months, but the results were not consistent till 12 months. Perhaps, the results were reversed in the opposite direction after 12 months. The other two studies[29],[34] did not show any potentially added advantage of laser therapy comparing to conventional, mechanical, and chemical debridement procedures.

Sánchez-Martos et al.[37] used nonsurgical approach and showed a statistically significant improvement using laser therapy in peri-implant mucositis cases; however, another study done by Aimetti et al.[38] on cases with peri-implant mucositis did not show any statistically significant difference after treatment. Hence, further randomized control trials are necessary to formulate any conclusive evidence regarding the effect of laser on peri-implant mucositis.

Based on the findings of various included studies, it is quite evident that laser treatment as an adjunctive therapy or monotherapy does not show any superior effects than other measures taken to treat peri-implantitis.

Based on available trials in literature, this systemic review included all the trials using laser therapy irrespective of the type of lasers and wavelength used. The adverse effects of irradiation on titanium and peri implant surface are not only depend on the type of specific laser but also on the clinical settings it is applied, such as frequency of application, peak laser power, time of contact, and energy of emitting optic fiber. Sennhenn-Kirchner et al. and Tavares et al.[48],[49] stated that during laser irradiation of dental implants, an increase in surface temperature beyond critical threshold (10°C) can be reached after only 18 s when using different lasers under different clinical settings. Hence, it is quite evident that the settings and application mode are a major contributing factor in the efficacy of laser treatment.

This review focuses on new treatment approaches used in peri-implant diseases, as implant-supported treatment approaches are getting more importance in current dental practice; this systematic review and meta-analysis will help in creating stronger evidence related to treatment protocol for inflammation around implant-supported prosthesis. Different studies included in this review used different wavelengths and type of lasers such as Er:YAG and diode lasers (Bassetti et al.[28] and Aimetti et al.[38]). Debridement procedures (mechanical debridement and 0.2% chlorhexidine gluconate, mechanical debridement and minocycline, mechanical debridement and air abrasion, etc.) were also different in different studies in control groups. Hence, further randomized clinical trials are definitely needed with specific clinical settings and characteristics of laser therapy and against a common and accepted debridement procedure to generate further conclusive evidence.

Strength of this systematic review and meta-analysis

This review is based on a well-designed PICOS question and clearly defined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Only randomized controlled clinical trials were included in this review, which are usually considered as studies with high level of evidence.

Limitations of this systematic review and meta-analysis

Only articles published in English languages were selected which may create selection bias during study selection procedures. Another limitation of this study is that many confounding factors were present in the included clinical trials like different types of chemical and mechanical debridement procedures such as 0.2% chlorhexidine gluconate, hydrogen peroxide, and use of titanium and plastic curettes and ultrasonic tips. Hence, further trials should be done to check the efficiency of a specific laser under a predefined clinical setting over a simple and accepted debridement procedure in the control group to minimize the effect of different confounding factors.[49],[50]


Based on the studies included for peri-implantitis, laser treatment did not show any specific advantage as a treatment approach over conventional methods. Due to a very limited number of clinical trials that have been conducted to evaluate the effect of laser on peri-implant mucositis, clear evidence cannot be generated regarding the additional benefit of laser therapy for peri-implant mucositis.

Financial support and sponsorship


Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.


1Derks J, Tomasi C. Peri-implant health and disease. A systematic review of current epidemiology. J Clin Periodontol 2015;42 Suppl 16:S158-71.
2el Askary AS, Meffert RM, Griffin T. Why do dental implants fail?Part I. Implant Dent 1999;8:173-85.
3DeLuca S, Zarb G. The effect of smoking on osseointegrated dental implants. Part II: Peri-implant bone loss. Int J Prosthodont 2006;19:560-6.
4Bain C. Influences of smoking on the periodontium and dental implants. Dent Update 1997;24:328-30.
5Renvert S, Persson GR, Pirih FQ, Camargo PM. Peri-implant health, peri-implant mucositis, and peri-implantitis: Case definitions and diagnostic considerations. J Clin Periodontol 2018;45 Suppl 20:S278-85.
6Lopes GD, Feitosa AC, Suaid FF, Matos JD, Vasconcelos JE, Vaz SL, et al. Evaluation of peri-implant condition in periodontally compromised patients. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2019;19:283-9.
7Pontoriero R, Tonelli MP, Carnevale G, Mombelli A, Nyman SR, Lang NP. Experimentally induced peri-implant mucositis. A clinical study in humans. Clin Oral Implants Res 1994;5:254-9.
8Sbordone L, Barone A, Ciaglia RN, Ramaglia L, Iacono VJ. Longitudinal study of dental implants in a periodontally compromised population. J Periodontol 1999;70:1322-9.
9Berglundh T, Persson L, Klinge B. A systematic review of the incidence of biological and technical complications in implant dentistry reported in prospective longitudinal studies of at least 5 years. J Clin Periodontol 2002;29 Suppl 3:197-212.
10Lindhe J, Meyle J, Group D of European Workshop on Periodontology. Peri-implant diseases: Consensus report of the sixth european workshop on periodontology. J Clin Periodontol 2008;35:282-5.
11Froum SJ, Rosen PS. A proposed classification for peri-implantitis. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2012;32:533-40.
12Atieh MA, Alsabeeha NH, Faggion CM Jr., Duncan WJ. The frequency of peri-implant diseases: A sys-tematic review and meta-analysis. J Periodontol 2013;84:1586-98.
13Berglundh T, Lindhe J, Ericsson I, Marinello CP, Liljenberg B, Thomsen P. The soft tissue barrier at implants and teeth. Clin Oral Implants Res 1991;2:81-90.
14Sanz M, Newman MG, Nachnani S, Holt R, Stewart R, Flemmig T. Characterization of the subgingival microbial flora around endosteal sapphire dental implants in partially edentulous patients. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 1990;5:247-53.
15Hunt BW, Sandifer JB, Assad DA, Gher ME. Effect of flap design on healing and osseointegration of dental implants. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 1996;16:582-93.
16Silverstein LH, Kurtzman D, Garnick JJ, Schuster GS, Steflik DE, Moskowitz ME. The microbiota of the peri-implant region in health and disease. Implant Dent 1994;3:170-4.
17Mombelli A, Lang NP. Antimicrobial treatment of peri-implant infections. Clin Oral Implants Res 1992;3:162-8.
18Esposito M, Grusovin MG, Kakisis I, Coulthard P, Worthington HV. Interventions for replacing missing teeth: Treatment of perimplantitis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2008;2:CD004970.
19Kotsovilis S, Karoussis IK, Trianti M, Fourmousis I. Therapy of peri-implantitis: A systematic review. J Clin Periodontol 2008;35:621-9.
20Ntrouka VI, Slot DE, Louropoulou A, Van der Weijden F. The effect of chemotherapeutic agents on contaminated titanium surfaces: A systematic review. Clin Oral Implants Res 2011;22:681-90.
21Stubinger S, Etter C, Miskiewicz M, Homann F, Saldamli B, Wieland M, et al. Surface alterations of polished and sandblasted and acid-etched titanium implants after Er:YAG, carbon dioxide, and diode laser irradiation. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2010;25:104-11.
22Tosun E, Tasar F, Strauss R, Kıvanc DG, Ungor C. Comparative evaluation of antimicrobial effects of Er:YAG, diode, and CO2 lasers on titanium discs: An experimental study. J Oral Maxillofac Surg 2012;70:1064-9.
23Park JH, Heo SJ, Koak JY, Kim SK, Han CH, Lee JH. Effects of laser irradiation on machined and anodized titanium disks. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2012;27:265-72.
24Kotsakis GA, Konstantinidis I, Karoussis IK, Ma X, Chu H. Systematic review and meta-analysis of the effect of various laser wavelengths in the treatment of peri-implantitis. J Periodontol 2014;85:1203-13.
25Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gøtzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: Explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med 2009;6:e1000100.
26Moher D, Schulz KF, Altman D. CONSORT Group (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials). The CONSORT statement: Revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomized trials. JAMA 2001;285:1987-91.
27Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, Jüni P, Moher D, Oxman AD, et al. The Cochrane collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 2011;343:d5928.
28Bassetti M, Schär D, Wicki B, Eick S, Ramseier CA, Arweiler NB, et al. Anti-infective therapy of peri-implantitis with adjunctive local drug delivery or photodynamic therapy: 12-month outcomes of a randomized controlled clinical trial. Clin Oral Implants Res 2014;25:279-87.
29Schär D, Ramseier CA, Eick S, Arweiler NB, Sculean A, Salvi GE. Anti-infective therapy of peri-implantitis with adjunctive local drug delivery or photodynamic therapy: Six-month outcomes of a prospective randomized clinical trial. Clin Oral Implants Res 2013;24:104-10.
30Schwarz F, Sculean A, Rothamel D, Schwenzer K, Georg T, Becker J. Clinical evaluation of an Er:YAG laser for nonsurgical treatment of peri-implantitis: A pilot study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2005;16:44-52.
31Schwarz F, John G, Mainusch S, Sahm N, Becker J. Combined surgical therapy of peri-implantitis evaluating two methods of surface debridement and decontamination. A two-year clinical follow up report. J Clin Periodontol 2012;39:789-97.
32Schwarz F, Hegewald A, John G, Sahm N, Becker J. Four-year follow-up of combined surgical therapy of advanced peri-implantitis evaluating two methods of surface decontamination. J Clin Periodontol 2013;40:962-7.
33Schwarz F, Sahm N, Iglhaut G, Becker J. Impact of the method of surface debridement and decontamination on the clinical outcome following combined surgical therapy of peri-implantitis: A randomized controlled clinical study. J Clin Periodontol 2011;38:276-84.
34Persson GR, Roos-Jansåker AM, Lindahl C, Renvert S. Microbiologic results after non-surgical erbium-doped:yttrium, aluminum, and garnet laser or air-abrasive treatment of peri-implantitis: A randomized clinical trial. J Periodontol 2011;82:1267-78.
35Schwarz F, Bieling K, Bonsmann M, Latz T, Becker J. Nonsurgical treatment of moderate and advanced periimplantitis lesions: A controlled clinical study. Clin Oral Investig 2006;10:279-88.
36Papadopoulos CA, Vouros I, Menexes G, Konstantinidis A. The utilization of a diode laser in the surgical treatment of peri-implantitis. A randomized clinical trial. Clin Oral Investig 2015;19:1851-60.
37Sánchez-Martos R, Samman A, Bouazza-Juanes K, Díaz-Fernández JM, Arias-Herrera S. Clinical effect of diode laser on peri-implant tissues during non-surgical peri-implant mucositis therapy: Randomized controlled clinical study. J Clin Exp Dent 2020;12:e13-21.
38Aimetti M, Mariani GM, Ferrarotti F, Ercoli E, Liu CC, Romano F. Adjunctive efficacy of diode laser in the treatment of peri-implant mucositis with mechanical therapy: A randomized clinical trial. Clin Oral Implants Res 2019;30:429-38.
39Deppe H, Horch HH, Neff A. Conventional versus CO2 laser-assisted treatment of peri-implant defects with the concomitant use of pure-phase beta-tricalcium phosphate: A 5-year clinical report. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2007;22:79-86.
40Schwarz F, Rothamel D, Becker J. Influence of an Er:YAG laser on the surface structure of titanium implants. Schweiz Monatsschr Zahnmed 2003;113:660-71.
41Bombeccari GP, Guzzi G, Gualini F, Gualini S, Santoro F, Spadari F. Photodynamic therapy to treat periimplantitis. Implant Dent 2013;22:631-8.
42Renvert S, Lindahl C, Roos Jansåker AM, Persson GR. Treatment of peri-implantitis using an Er:YAG laser or an air-abrasive device: A randomized clinical trial. J Clin Periodontol 2011;38:65-73.
43Zeza B, Farina R, Pilloni A, Mongardini C. Clinical outcomes of experimental gingivitis and peri-implant mucositis treatment with professionally administered plaque removal and photodynamic therapy. Int J Dent Hyg 2018;16:e58-64.
44Australian Government, NHMRC. How to use the evidence: Assessment and application of scientific evidence. Available from: http://nhmrc. gov. au/_files_ nhmrc/file/publications/synopses/cp69.pdf. [Last accessed on 2017 Dec 10].
45Parma-Benfenati S, Roncati M, Tinti C. Treatment of peri-implantitis: Surgical therapeutic approaches based on peri-implantitis defects. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent 2013;33:627-33.
46Klinge B, Meyle J, Working Group 2. Peri-implant tissue destruction. The third EAO consensus conference 2012. Clin Oral Implants Res 2012;23 Suppl 6:108-10.
47Bajaj S, Rani S, Issar G, Sethi U, Kumar S, Mishra S. Comparative evaluation of crestal bone levels around endosseous implants as influenced by conventional and diode laser during second-stage surgery in mandibular implant-supported overdenture: An in vivo study. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2020;20:52-60.
48Sennhenn-Kirchner S, Klaue S, Wolff N, Mergeryan H, Borg von Zepelin M, Jacobs HG. Decontamination of rough titanium surfaces with diode lasers: Microbiological findings onin vivo grown biofilms. Clin Oral Implants Res 2007;18:126-32.
49Tavares LJ, Pavarina AC, Vergani CE, de Avila ED. The impact of antimicrobial photodynamic therapy on peri-implant disease: What mechanisms are involved in this novel treatment?Photodiagnosis Photodyn Ther 2017;17:236-44.
50Dalago HR, Schuldt Filho G, Rodrigues MA, Renvert S, Bianchini MA. Risk indicators for peri-implantitis. A cross-sectional study with 916 implants. Clin Oral Implants Res 2017;28:144-50.