The stability of implants and microbiological effects following photobiomodulation therapy with one‐stage placement: A randomized, controlled, single‐blinded, and split‐mouth clinical study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Studies have reported a positive effect on bone healing and the elimination of microorganisms placed on the titanium implants, while others have not confirmed the positive photobiomodulation therapy (PBMT) effects on bone regeneration and bone structure around the implants. PURPOSE: The aim of the present study was to address the following questions: Does PBMT improve implant stability and affect microbiota around dental implants in the early stage of osseointegration? MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study was designed as randomized-controlled prospective, split mouth, single-blinded clinical trial. Implants were randomly divided into two groups and implants placed in the test group were treated with Gallium-aluminum-arsenide (GaAlAs) diode laser with PBMT immediately after surgery and for 15 days (n = 47). In the control group, implants were not irradiated(n = 46). The primary stability of the implants was measured by the Resonance frequency analysis (RFA) after insertion and the secondary stability values were recorded at 30th, 60th, and 90th days after surgery as implant stability quotient (ISQ). The hand-held RFA was held perpendicular to the jaw line as indicated by the manufacturer for buccal-lingual (BL), mesial-distal (MD), and lingual-buccal (LB) measurement and different measurements were analyzed as separately. RESULTS: Significantly higher magnetic RFA values were achieved on the 90th day in all measurement sides for both groups. ISQ levels in groups at baseline and the day-30, 60, and 90. ISQ readings were not statistically significant between test and control groups for each time point. A statistically significant increase in ISQ reading for BL, MD, and LB dimensions in both groups was noted from baseline to the day-90 (P < .05). CONCLUSION: It was concluded that PBMT did not have a clinically significant effect on implant stabilization, especially in terms of ISQ values at early alveolar bone healing term. Clinical trial number is NCT04495335.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".