Influence of low‐level laser therapy on implant stability in implants placed in fresh extraction sockets: A randomized clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Low‐level laser therapy (LLLT) has been suggested to improve primary stability at the early stages of osseointegration in animal models. However, there is still scarce evidence about its influence on implant stability in humans. Purpose To assess the influence of LLLT on implant stability in implants placed in fresh extraction sockets. Material and methods A randomized controlled trial was designed according to the SPIRIT guidelines and is reported following the CONSORT. Patients were randomly allocated according to control or LLLT groups. LLLT consisted in the application of GaAlAs laser (808 nm, avg. power density: 50 mW, circular spot diameter and area: 0.71 cm/0.4cm 2 ) applied in six points in contact mode with peri‐implant soft tissue (1.23 minutes in each point of application; dose per point 11 J) before bone perforation and after suturing. The total dose resulted in 66 J per application moment. This LLLT protocol was applied only in the dental implant placement session. Implant stability was by ISQ at implant placement (T 0 ) and the abutment selection (T a ). Digital radiographs for T 0 and T a were used to assess the distance between the implant platform and alveolar bone crest, in millimeters. T‐ t est and Shapiro‐Wilk test were used to analyze data between groups using the implant as a unit of analysis. Results Fifty implants were placed in 44 patients. The insertion torque ranged from 15 to 60 N.cm (mean 35.64 ± 13.34). Two implants of the LLLT and one of the control groups were lost to follow‐up and one implant of the control group failed to osseointegrate (4.3%). ISQ at T 0 ranged from 17 to 79 (mean 59.33 ± 13.05) and from 40 to 89 (mean 66.46 SD ± 11.56) at T a . No differences were observed when comparing the groups with ISQ difference ( P = .433) or radiographical peri‐implant alterations ( P = .261). Conclusions LLLT did not influence implant stability in implants placed in fresh extraction sockets when assessed at healing abutment installation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".