In peri-implantitis, treatment lasers are effectively used to enhance implant surfaces’ decontamination of bacteria. The type of lasers commonly used and tested in dentistry are Nd:YAG, Er:YAG and diodes. The Er:YAG laser is considered to be effective in removing biofilm from implant surfaces. Photodynamic therapy (PDT), realized with low-level laser therapy (LLLT) and a photosensitizer, seems to have limited efficacy in peri-implantitis management, while diode lasers used with high frequency and power (Wiser, Doctor Smile), performed with hydrogen peroxide 10 vol. 3% (OHLLT), seems to lead to a deep sanitization of implant surfaces, without any thermal effect. The aim of our retrospective controlled study is to compare an oxygen high-level laser therapy (OHLLT) protocol with OHLLT with an Er:YAG laser (Pluser, Doctor Smile) in order to maximize bacterial removal and to evaluate if an Er:YAG laser could improve hard tissue regeneration with respect to OHLLT alone. Two hundred and ten implants affected by peri-implantitis were divided into two groups: 88 implants were treated with OHLLT alone (control group) while 122 underwent OHLLT and Er:YAG treatment (test group). Mean bone loss before (T₀) and after treatment (T₁) (with a follow-up of 5 years) was registered for all implants. The collected data were analyzed with the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 11.5. No statistically significant differences were found. In the OHLLT group, we noticed a mean bone loss after treatment of 2.1 mm in the upper arch and 2.4 mm in the mandible. In the OHLLT + Er:YAG group, the results indicate a mean bone loss of 2.0 mm in the upper arch and 2.5 mm in the mandible. Both groups showed a mean bone loss after treatment of 2.3 mm. According to the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test, overall, data followed a normal distribution (value of the K-S test statistic = 0.0912; p = 0.36112). OHLLT plays a central role in enhancing clinical results in peri-implantitis treatment, leading to an effective bacterial decontamination. Our results showed no statistically significant differences between OHLLT and OHLLT + Er:YAG laser; thus, the potential advantageous role of Er:YAG has been downgraded with the analysis of our study.

The aim of this study was to evaluate two different kinds of rough implant surface and to assess their tendency to peri-implantitis disease, with a follow-up of more than 10 years. Data were obtained from a cluster of 500 implants with Ti-Unite surface and 1000 implants with Ossean surface, with a minimum follow-up of 10 years. Implants had been inserted both in pristine bone and regenerated bone. We registered incidence of peri-implantitis and other causes of implant loss. All patients agreed with the following maintenance protocol: sonic brush with vertical movement (Broxo), interdental brushes, and oral irrigators (Broxo) at least two times every day. For all patients with implants, we evaluated subgingival plaque samples by phase-contrast microscopy every 4 months for a period of more than 10-years. Ti-Unite surface implants underwent peri-implantitis in 1.6% of the total number of implants inserted and Ossean surface implants showed peri-implantitis in 1.5% of the total number of implants. The total percentage of implant lost was 4% for Ti-Unite surfaces and 3.6% for Ossean surfaces. Strict control of implants leads to low percentage of peri-implantitis even for rough surfaces dental implants.

During implant restorative dentistry, common and crippling postoperative complications are pain and swelling of perioral soft tissues which engraving on patient quality of life. Concentrated growth factors (CGF), a novel generation of autologous platelet concentrate, and melatonin, endogenous indoleamine with also bone regenerative properties, may be useful for reconstruction of bony defects as well as in prosthetic and esthetic rehabilitation. We report a clinical case in which guided bone regeneration was performed combining CGF, melatonin and heterologous biomaterial. Great postoperative recovery without any complications was reported. In conclusion, in restorative dentistry the combined use of CGF and melatonin may have important roles in restoring bone defect, in improving implant osteointegration and, not less important, in preventing postoperative complications.

Patients still refuse or discontinue orthodontic treatment due to related pain and discomfort. In this study, we investigate if low-level laser therapy (LLLT) can reduce pain caused by orthodontic bands. Sixty subjects who needed bands placed on the upper permanent first molars were assigned randomly to the LLLT group, placebo, and control groups. Inclusion criteria were: age range 10–14 years, fully erupted upper first molars in healthy condition, presence of tight mesial proximal contact. Exclusion criteria were: systemic or metabolic diseases, chronic pain or neurological or psychiatric disorders, use of pharmacological agents interfering with pain perception, previous orthodontic treatment or the simultaneous presence of other devices in the patient’s mouth. The assessment of pain was performed by using a numeric rating scale (NRS) considering different time intervals, i.e., immediately after bands placement, 6 h, 24 h, and from day 2 to day 5. Differences in the maximum pain and in pain experienced at each time-point, among the three groups, was assessed by using the Kruskal–Wallis H. The final sample included 56 patients, 29 males, and 27 females, with a mean age of 12.03 ± 1.3 years. Patients were randomly allocated into three groups (tested, control, and placebo group) with each group consisting respectively of 19, 20, and 17 individuals. Subjects in the LLLT experienced less pain at each time interval as well as the maximum pain score being lower in the LLLT compared to control and placebo groups. These findings were all statistically significant (p < 0.05). LLLT can alleviate the intensity of pain after the placement of orthodontic bands.

Peri-implantitis management could be performed either with a surgical or non-surgical approach to the implant surfaces. Various treatment options have been proposed in the literature, such as antiseptic and antibiotic therapies, chemical agents, curettes, ultrasonic, air abrasive, rotary titanium brushes and laser treatments; in particular, photodynamic therapy combined with hydrogen peroxide (OHLLT) has proved to be efficient in the removal of bacterial biofilm from implant surfaces. The aim of our study is to compare OHLLT performed with a surgical approach to a non-surgical approach. We selected a cluster of 227 implants affected by peri-implantitis: 139 implants were treated with a non-surgical approach and 88 implants with a surgical approach. Bone loss pre-operative and post-operative (with a follow-up of five years) have been registered. The collected data were entered on the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) version 11.5. The results indicate a statistically significant difference between the two groups, with a mean bone loss after treatment of 2.3 mm for OHLLT with a surgical approach and 3.8 mm for OHLLT with a non-surgical approach; according to the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test, the overall data followed a normal distribution (value of the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test statistic = 0.0891; p = 0.35794). Thus, a surgical approach in the case of peri-implantitis seems to be more effective, probably due to the possibility of a deeper sanitization of implant surfaces, hardly reachable with only non-surgical approach.