Laser Management of Peri-Implantitis: A Comparison between Photodynamic Therapy Combined with Hydrogen Peroxide (OHLLT) and OHLLT + Er:YAG Laser. A Retrospective Controlled Study

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 (T<sub<0</sub<) and after treatment (T<sub<1</sub<) (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; <i<p</i< = 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. Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:

Autor*in:	Gianluigi Caccianiga [verfasserIn] Gérard Rey [verfasserIn] Paolo Caccianiga [verfasserIn] Alessandro Leonida [verfasserIn] Marco Baldoni [verfasserIn] Alessandro Baldoni [verfasserIn] Saverio Ceraulo [verfasserIn]

Format:	E-Artikel
Sprache:	Englisch

Erschienen:	2021

Schlagwörter:	bacterial removal bone regeneration diode laser Er:YAG laser high frequency hydrogen peroxide

Übergeordnetes Werk:	In: Applied Sciences - MDPI AG, 2012, 11(2021), 15, p 6771
Übergeordnetes Werk:	volume:11 ; year:2021 ; number:15, p 6771

Links:	Link aufrufen Link aufrufen Link aufrufen Journal toc

DOI / URN:	10.3390/app11156771

Katalog-ID:	DOAJ057569916

Internformat


LEADER	01000caa a22002652 4500
001	DOAJ057569916
003	DE-627
005	20240412165157.0
007	cr uuu---uuuuu
008	230227s2021 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c
024	7		\|a 10.3390/app11156771 \|2 doi
035			\|a (DE-627)DOAJ057569916
035			\|a (DE-599)DOAJ4dea0a28b612487f8c400c6c61ea877f
040			\|a DE-627 \|b ger \|c DE-627 \|e rakwb
041			\|a eng
050		0	\|a TA1-2040
050		0	\|a QH301-705.5
050		0	\|a QC1-999
050		0	\|a QD1-999
100	0		\|a Gianluigi Caccianiga \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
245	1	0	\|a Laser Management of Peri-Implantitis: A Comparison between Photodynamic Therapy Combined with Hydrogen Peroxide (OHLLT) and OHLLT + Er:YAG Laser. A Retrospective Controlled Study
264		1	\|c 2021
336			\|a Text \|b txt \|2 rdacontent
337			\|a Computermedien \|b c \|2 rdamedia
338			\|a Online-Ressource \|b cr \|2 rdacarrier
520			\|a 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 (T<sub<0</sub<) and after treatment (T<sub<1</sub<) (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; <i<p</i< = 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.
650		4	\|a bacterial removal
650		4	\|a bone regeneration
650		4	\|a diode laser
650		4	\|a Er:YAG laser
650		4	\|a high frequency
650		4	\|a hydrogen peroxide
653		0	\|a Technology
653		0	\|a T
653		0	\|a Engineering (General). Civil engineering (General)
653		0	\|a Biology (General)
653		0	\|a Physics
653		0	\|a Chemistry
700	0		\|a Gérard Rey \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Paolo Caccianiga \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Alessandro Leonida \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Marco Baldoni \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Alessandro Baldoni \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
700	0		\|a Saverio Ceraulo \|e verfasserin \|4 aut
773	0	8	\|i In \|t Applied Sciences \|d MDPI AG, 2012 \|g 11(2021), 15, p 6771 \|w (DE-627)737287640 \|w (DE-600)2704225-X \|x 20763417 \|7 nnns
773	1	8	\|g volume:11 \|g year:2021 \|g number:15, p 6771
856	4	0	\|u https://doi.org/10.3390/app11156771 \|z kostenfrei
856	4	0	\|u https://doaj.org/article/4dea0a28b612487f8c400c6c61ea877f \|z kostenfrei
856	4	0	\|u https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/11/15/6771 \|z kostenfrei
856	4	2	\|u https://doaj.org/toc/2076-3417 \|y Journal toc \|z kostenfrei
912			\|a GBV_USEFLAG_A
912			\|a SYSFLAG_A
912			\|a GBV_DOAJ
912			\|a GBV_ILN_11
912			\|a GBV_ILN_20
912			\|a GBV_ILN_22
912			\|a GBV_ILN_23
912			\|a GBV_ILN_24
912			\|a GBV_ILN_39
912			\|a GBV_ILN_40
912			\|a GBV_ILN_60
912			\|a GBV_ILN_62
912			\|a GBV_ILN_63
912			\|a GBV_ILN_65
912			\|a GBV_ILN_69
912			\|a GBV_ILN_70
912			\|a GBV_ILN_73
912			\|a GBV_ILN_95
912			\|a GBV_ILN_105
912			\|a GBV_ILN_110
912			\|a GBV_ILN_151
912			\|a GBV_ILN_161
912			\|a GBV_ILN_170
912			\|a GBV_ILN_171
912			\|a GBV_ILN_213
912			\|a GBV_ILN_230
912			\|a GBV_ILN_285
912			\|a GBV_ILN_293
912			\|a GBV_ILN_370
912			\|a GBV_ILN_602
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2014
912			\|a GBV_ILN_2055
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4012
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4037
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4112
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4125
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4126
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4249
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4305
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4306
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4307
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4313
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4322
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4323
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4324
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4325
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4335
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4338
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4367
912			\|a GBV_ILN_4700
951			\|a AR
952			\|d 11 \|j 2021 \|e 15, p 6771

Indexfelder

author_variant	g c gc g r gr p c pc a l al m b mb a b ab s c sc
matchkey_str	article:20763417:2021----::aemngmnopripattscmaiobtenhtdnmchrpcmiewthdoeprxdoltnolt
hierarchy_sort_str	2021
callnumber-subject-code	TA
publishDate	2021
allfields	10.3390/app11156771 doi (DE-627)DOAJ057569916 (DE-599)DOAJ4dea0a28b612487f8c400c6c61ea877f DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng TA1-2040 QH301-705.5 QC1-999 QD1-999 Gianluigi Caccianiga verfasserin aut Laser Management of Peri-Implantitis: A Comparison between Photodynamic Therapy Combined with Hydrogen Peroxide (OHLLT) and OHLLT + Er:YAG Laser. A Retrospective Controlled Study 2021 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier 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 (T<sub<0</sub<) and after treatment (T<sub<1</sub<) (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; <i<p</i< = 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. bacterial removal bone regeneration diode laser Er:YAG laser high frequency hydrogen peroxide Technology T Engineering (General). Civil engineering (General) Biology (General) Physics Chemistry Gérard Rey verfasserin aut Paolo Caccianiga verfasserin aut Alessandro Leonida verfasserin aut Marco Baldoni verfasserin aut Alessandro Baldoni verfasserin aut Saverio Ceraulo verfasserin aut In Applied Sciences MDPI AG, 2012 11(2021), 15, p 6771 (DE-627)737287640 (DE-600)2704225-X 20763417 nnns volume:11 year:2021 number:15, p 6771 https://doi.org/10.3390/app11156771 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/4dea0a28b612487f8c400c6c61ea877f kostenfrei https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/11/15/6771 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2076-3417 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_171 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4335 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 11 2021 15, p 6771
spelling	10.3390/app11156771 doi (DE-627)DOAJ057569916 (DE-599)DOAJ4dea0a28b612487f8c400c6c61ea877f DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng TA1-2040 QH301-705.5 QC1-999 QD1-999 Gianluigi Caccianiga verfasserin aut Laser Management of Peri-Implantitis: A Comparison between Photodynamic Therapy Combined with Hydrogen Peroxide (OHLLT) and OHLLT + Er:YAG Laser. A Retrospective Controlled Study 2021 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier 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 (T<sub<0</sub<) and after treatment (T<sub<1</sub<) (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; <i<p</i< = 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. bacterial removal bone regeneration diode laser Er:YAG laser high frequency hydrogen peroxide Technology T Engineering (General). Civil engineering (General) Biology (General) Physics Chemistry Gérard Rey verfasserin aut Paolo Caccianiga verfasserin aut Alessandro Leonida verfasserin aut Marco Baldoni verfasserin aut Alessandro Baldoni verfasserin aut Saverio Ceraulo verfasserin aut In Applied Sciences MDPI AG, 2012 11(2021), 15, p 6771 (DE-627)737287640 (DE-600)2704225-X 20763417 nnns volume:11 year:2021 number:15, p 6771 https://doi.org/10.3390/app11156771 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/4dea0a28b612487f8c400c6c61ea877f kostenfrei https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/11/15/6771 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2076-3417 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_171 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4335 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 11 2021 15, p 6771
allfields_unstemmed	10.3390/app11156771 doi (DE-627)DOAJ057569916 (DE-599)DOAJ4dea0a28b612487f8c400c6c61ea877f DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng TA1-2040 QH301-705.5 QC1-999 QD1-999 Gianluigi Caccianiga verfasserin aut Laser Management of Peri-Implantitis: A Comparison between Photodynamic Therapy Combined with Hydrogen Peroxide (OHLLT) and OHLLT + Er:YAG Laser. A Retrospective Controlled Study 2021 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier 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 (T<sub<0</sub<) and after treatment (T<sub<1</sub<) (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; <i<p</i< = 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. bacterial removal bone regeneration diode laser Er:YAG laser high frequency hydrogen peroxide Technology T Engineering (General). Civil engineering (General) Biology (General) Physics Chemistry Gérard Rey verfasserin aut Paolo Caccianiga verfasserin aut Alessandro Leonida verfasserin aut Marco Baldoni verfasserin aut Alessandro Baldoni verfasserin aut Saverio Ceraulo verfasserin aut In Applied Sciences MDPI AG, 2012 11(2021), 15, p 6771 (DE-627)737287640 (DE-600)2704225-X 20763417 nnns volume:11 year:2021 number:15, p 6771 https://doi.org/10.3390/app11156771 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/4dea0a28b612487f8c400c6c61ea877f kostenfrei https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/11/15/6771 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2076-3417 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_171 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4335 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 11 2021 15, p 6771
allfieldsGer	10.3390/app11156771 doi (DE-627)DOAJ057569916 (DE-599)DOAJ4dea0a28b612487f8c400c6c61ea877f DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng TA1-2040 QH301-705.5 QC1-999 QD1-999 Gianluigi Caccianiga verfasserin aut Laser Management of Peri-Implantitis: A Comparison between Photodynamic Therapy Combined with Hydrogen Peroxide (OHLLT) and OHLLT + Er:YAG Laser. A Retrospective Controlled Study 2021 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier 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 (T<sub<0</sub<) and after treatment (T<sub<1</sub<) (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; <i<p</i< = 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. bacterial removal bone regeneration diode laser Er:YAG laser high frequency hydrogen peroxide Technology T Engineering (General). Civil engineering (General) Biology (General) Physics Chemistry Gérard Rey verfasserin aut Paolo Caccianiga verfasserin aut Alessandro Leonida verfasserin aut Marco Baldoni verfasserin aut Alessandro Baldoni verfasserin aut Saverio Ceraulo verfasserin aut In Applied Sciences MDPI AG, 2012 11(2021), 15, p 6771 (DE-627)737287640 (DE-600)2704225-X 20763417 nnns volume:11 year:2021 number:15, p 6771 https://doi.org/10.3390/app11156771 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/4dea0a28b612487f8c400c6c61ea877f kostenfrei https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/11/15/6771 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2076-3417 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_171 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4335 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 11 2021 15, p 6771
allfieldsSound	10.3390/app11156771 doi (DE-627)DOAJ057569916 (DE-599)DOAJ4dea0a28b612487f8c400c6c61ea877f DE-627 ger DE-627 rakwb eng TA1-2040 QH301-705.5 QC1-999 QD1-999 Gianluigi Caccianiga verfasserin aut Laser Management of Peri-Implantitis: A Comparison between Photodynamic Therapy Combined with Hydrogen Peroxide (OHLLT) and OHLLT + Er:YAG Laser. A Retrospective Controlled Study 2021 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier 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 (T<sub<0</sub<) and after treatment (T<sub<1</sub<) (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; <i<p</i< = 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. bacterial removal bone regeneration diode laser Er:YAG laser high frequency hydrogen peroxide Technology T Engineering (General). Civil engineering (General) Biology (General) Physics Chemistry Gérard Rey verfasserin aut Paolo Caccianiga verfasserin aut Alessandro Leonida verfasserin aut Marco Baldoni verfasserin aut Alessandro Baldoni verfasserin aut Saverio Ceraulo verfasserin aut In Applied Sciences MDPI AG, 2012 11(2021), 15, p 6771 (DE-627)737287640 (DE-600)2704225-X 20763417 nnns volume:11 year:2021 number:15, p 6771 https://doi.org/10.3390/app11156771 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/article/4dea0a28b612487f8c400c6c61ea877f kostenfrei https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/11/15/6771 kostenfrei https://doaj.org/toc/2076-3417 Journal toc kostenfrei GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_171 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4335 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700 AR 11 2021 15, p 6771
language	English
source	In Applied Sciences 11(2021), 15, p 6771 volume:11 year:2021 number:15, p 6771
sourceStr	In Applied Sciences 11(2021), 15, p 6771 volume:11 year:2021 number:15, p 6771
format_phy_str_mv	Article
institution	findex.gbv.de
topic_facet	bacterial removal bone regeneration diode laser Er:YAG laser high frequency hydrogen peroxide Technology T Engineering (General). Civil engineering (General) Biology (General) Physics Chemistry
isfreeaccess_bool	true
container_title	Applied Sciences
authorswithroles_txt_mv	Gianluigi Caccianiga @@aut@@ Gérard Rey @@aut@@ Paolo Caccianiga @@aut@@ Alessandro Leonida @@aut@@ Marco Baldoni @@aut@@ Alessandro Baldoni @@aut@@ Saverio Ceraulo @@aut@@
publishDateDaySort_date	2021-01-01T00:00:00Z
hierarchy_top_id	737287640
id	DOAJ057569916
language_de	englisch
fullrecord	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ057569916</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20240412165157.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230227s2021 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.3390/app11156771</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ057569916</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJ4dea0a28b612487f8c400c6c61ea877f</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">TA1-2040</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">QH301-705.5</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">QC1-999</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">QD1-999</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Gianluigi Caccianiga</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Laser Management of Peri-Implantitis: A Comparison between Photodynamic Therapy Combined with Hydrogen Peroxide (OHLLT) and OHLLT + Er:YAG Laser. A Retrospective Controlled Study</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2021</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">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 (T<sub<0</sub<) and after treatment (T<sub<1</sub<) (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; <i<p</i< = 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.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">bacterial removal</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">bone regeneration</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">diode laser</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Er:YAG laser</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">high frequency</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">hydrogen peroxide</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Technology</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">T</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Engineering (General). Civil engineering (General)</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Biology (General)</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Physics</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Chemistry</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Gérard Rey</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Paolo Caccianiga</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Alessandro Leonida</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Marco Baldoni</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Alessandro Baldoni</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Saverio Ceraulo</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">Applied Sciences</subfield><subfield code="d">MDPI AG, 2012</subfield><subfield code="g">11(2021), 15, p 6771</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)737287640</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2704225-X</subfield><subfield code="x">20763417</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:11</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2021</subfield><subfield code="g">number:15, p 6771</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.3390/app11156771</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/4dea0a28b612487f8c400c6c61ea877f</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/11/15/6771</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/2076-3417</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_70</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_171</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_370</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2055</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4335</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">11</subfield><subfield code="j">2021</subfield><subfield code="e">15, p 6771</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
callnumber-first	T - Technology
author	Gianluigi Caccianiga
spellingShingle	Gianluigi Caccianiga misc TA1-2040 misc QH301-705.5 misc QC1-999 misc QD1-999 misc bacterial removal misc bone regeneration misc diode laser misc Er:YAG laser misc high frequency misc hydrogen peroxide misc Technology misc T misc Engineering (General). Civil engineering (General) misc Biology (General) misc Physics misc Chemistry Laser Management of Peri-Implantitis: A Comparison between Photodynamic Therapy Combined with Hydrogen Peroxide (OHLLT) and OHLLT + Er:YAG Laser. A Retrospective Controlled Study
authorStr	Gianluigi Caccianiga
ppnlink_with_tag_str_mv	@@773@@(DE-627)737287640
format	electronic Article
delete_txt_mv	keep
author_role	aut aut aut aut aut aut aut
collection	DOAJ
remote_str	true
callnumber-label	TA1-2040
illustrated	Not Illustrated
issn	20763417
topic_title	TA1-2040 QH301-705.5 QC1-999 QD1-999 Laser Management of Peri-Implantitis: A Comparison between Photodynamic Therapy Combined with Hydrogen Peroxide (OHLLT) and OHLLT + Er:YAG Laser. A Retrospective Controlled Study bacterial removal bone regeneration diode laser Er:YAG laser high frequency hydrogen peroxide
topic	misc TA1-2040 misc QH301-705.5 misc QC1-999 misc QD1-999 misc bacterial removal misc bone regeneration misc diode laser misc Er:YAG laser misc high frequency misc hydrogen peroxide misc Technology misc T misc Engineering (General). Civil engineering (General) misc Biology (General) misc Physics misc Chemistry
topic_unstemmed	misc TA1-2040 misc QH301-705.5 misc QC1-999 misc QD1-999 misc bacterial removal misc bone regeneration misc diode laser misc Er:YAG laser misc high frequency misc hydrogen peroxide misc Technology misc T misc Engineering (General). Civil engineering (General) misc Biology (General) misc Physics misc Chemistry
topic_browse	misc TA1-2040 misc QH301-705.5 misc QC1-999 misc QD1-999 misc bacterial removal misc bone regeneration misc diode laser misc Er:YAG laser misc high frequency misc hydrogen peroxide misc Technology misc T misc Engineering (General). Civil engineering (General) misc Biology (General) misc Physics misc Chemistry
format_facet	Elektronische Aufsätze Aufsätze Elektronische Ressource
format_main_str_mv	Text Zeitschrift/Artikel
carriertype_str_mv	cr
hierarchy_parent_title	Applied Sciences
hierarchy_parent_id	737287640
hierarchy_top_title	Applied Sciences
isfreeaccess_txt	true
familylinks_str_mv	(DE-627)737287640 (DE-600)2704225-X
title	Laser Management of Peri-Implantitis: A Comparison between Photodynamic Therapy Combined with Hydrogen Peroxide (OHLLT) and OHLLT + Er:YAG Laser. A Retrospective Controlled Study
ctrlnum	(DE-627)DOAJ057569916 (DE-599)DOAJ4dea0a28b612487f8c400c6c61ea877f
title_full	Laser Management of Peri-Implantitis: A Comparison between Photodynamic Therapy Combined with Hydrogen Peroxide (OHLLT) and OHLLT + Er:YAG Laser. A Retrospective Controlled Study
author_sort	Gianluigi Caccianiga
journal	Applied Sciences
journalStr	Applied Sciences
callnumber-first-code	T
lang_code	eng
isOA_bool	true
recordtype	marc
publishDateSort	2021
contenttype_str_mv	txt
author_browse	Gianluigi Caccianiga Gérard Rey Paolo Caccianiga Alessandro Leonida Marco Baldoni Alessandro Baldoni Saverio Ceraulo
container_volume	11
class	TA1-2040 QH301-705.5 QC1-999 QD1-999
format_se	Elektronische Aufsätze
author-letter	Gianluigi Caccianiga
doi_str_mv	10.3390/app11156771
author2-role	verfasserin
title_sort	laser management of peri-implantitis: a comparison between photodynamic therapy combined with hydrogen peroxide (ohllt) and ohllt + er:yag laser. a retrospective controlled study
callnumber	TA1-2040
title_auth	Laser Management of Peri-Implantitis: A Comparison between Photodynamic Therapy Combined with Hydrogen Peroxide (OHLLT) and OHLLT + Er:YAG Laser. A Retrospective Controlled Study
abstract	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 (T<sub<0</sub<) and after treatment (T<sub<1</sub<) (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; <i<p</i< = 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.
abstractGer	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 (T<sub<0</sub<) and after treatment (T<sub<1</sub<) (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; <i<p</i< = 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.
abstract_unstemmed	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 (T<sub<0</sub<) and after treatment (T<sub<1</sub<) (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; <i<p</i< = 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.
collection_details	GBV_USEFLAG_A SYSFLAG_A GBV_DOAJ GBV_ILN_11 GBV_ILN_20 GBV_ILN_22 GBV_ILN_23 GBV_ILN_24 GBV_ILN_39 GBV_ILN_40 GBV_ILN_60 GBV_ILN_62 GBV_ILN_63 GBV_ILN_65 GBV_ILN_69 GBV_ILN_70 GBV_ILN_73 GBV_ILN_95 GBV_ILN_105 GBV_ILN_110 GBV_ILN_151 GBV_ILN_161 GBV_ILN_170 GBV_ILN_171 GBV_ILN_213 GBV_ILN_230 GBV_ILN_285 GBV_ILN_293 GBV_ILN_370 GBV_ILN_602 GBV_ILN_2014 GBV_ILN_2055 GBV_ILN_4012 GBV_ILN_4037 GBV_ILN_4112 GBV_ILN_4125 GBV_ILN_4126 GBV_ILN_4249 GBV_ILN_4305 GBV_ILN_4306 GBV_ILN_4307 GBV_ILN_4313 GBV_ILN_4322 GBV_ILN_4323 GBV_ILN_4324 GBV_ILN_4325 GBV_ILN_4335 GBV_ILN_4338 GBV_ILN_4367 GBV_ILN_4700
container_issue	15, p 6771
title_short	Laser Management of Peri-Implantitis: A Comparison between Photodynamic Therapy Combined with Hydrogen Peroxide (OHLLT) and OHLLT + Er:YAG Laser. A Retrospective Controlled Study
url	https://doi.org/10.3390/app11156771 https://doaj.org/article/4dea0a28b612487f8c400c6c61ea877f https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/11/15/6771 https://doaj.org/toc/2076-3417
remote_bool	true
author2	Gérard Rey Paolo Caccianiga Alessandro Leonida Marco Baldoni Alessandro Baldoni Saverio Ceraulo
author2Str	Gérard Rey Paolo Caccianiga Alessandro Leonida Marco Baldoni Alessandro Baldoni Saverio Ceraulo
ppnlink	737287640
callnumber-subject	TA - General and Civil Engineering
mediatype_str_mv	c
isOA_txt	true
hochschulschrift_bool	false
doi_str	10.3390/app11156771
callnumber-a	TA1-2040
up_date	2024-07-04T02:10:06.063Z
_version_	1803612592345710592
fullrecord_marcxml	<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><collection xmlns="http://www.loc.gov/MARC21/slim"><record><leader>01000caa a22002652 4500</leader><controlfield tag="001">DOAJ057569916</controlfield><controlfield tag="003">DE-627</controlfield><controlfield tag="005">20240412165157.0</controlfield><controlfield tag="007">cr uuu---uuuuu</controlfield><controlfield tag="008">230227s2021 xx \|\|\|\|\|o 00\| \|\|eng c</controlfield><datafield tag="024" ind1="7" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">10.3390/app11156771</subfield><subfield code="2">doi</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-627)DOAJ057569916</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="035" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">(DE-599)DOAJ4dea0a28b612487f8c400c6c61ea877f</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="040" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="b">ger</subfield><subfield code="c">DE-627</subfield><subfield code="e">rakwb</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="041" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">eng</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">TA1-2040</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">QH301-705.5</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">QC1-999</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="050" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">QD1-999</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="100" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Gianluigi Caccianiga</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="245" ind1="1" ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Laser Management of Peri-Implantitis: A Comparison between Photodynamic Therapy Combined with Hydrogen Peroxide (OHLLT) and OHLLT + Er:YAG Laser. A Retrospective Controlled Study</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="264" ind1=" " ind2="1"><subfield code="c">2021</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="336" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Text</subfield><subfield code="b">txt</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacontent</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="337" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Computermedien</subfield><subfield code="b">c</subfield><subfield code="2">rdamedia</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="338" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Online-Ressource</subfield><subfield code="b">cr</subfield><subfield code="2">rdacarrier</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="520" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">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 (T<sub<0</sub<) and after treatment (T<sub<1</sub<) (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; <i<p</i< = 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.</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">bacterial removal</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">bone regeneration</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">diode laser</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">Er:YAG laser</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">high frequency</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="650" ind1=" " ind2="4"><subfield code="a">hydrogen peroxide</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Technology</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">T</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Engineering (General). Civil engineering (General)</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Biology (General)</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Physics</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="653" ind1=" " ind2="0"><subfield code="a">Chemistry</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Gérard Rey</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Paolo Caccianiga</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Alessandro Leonida</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Marco Baldoni</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Alessandro Baldoni</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="700" ind1="0" ind2=" "><subfield code="a">Saverio Ceraulo</subfield><subfield code="e">verfasserin</subfield><subfield code="4">aut</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="0" ind2="8"><subfield code="i">In</subfield><subfield code="t">Applied Sciences</subfield><subfield code="d">MDPI AG, 2012</subfield><subfield code="g">11(2021), 15, p 6771</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-627)737287640</subfield><subfield code="w">(DE-600)2704225-X</subfield><subfield code="x">20763417</subfield><subfield code="7">nnns</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="773" ind1="1" ind2="8"><subfield code="g">volume:11</subfield><subfield code="g">year:2021</subfield><subfield code="g">number:15, p 6771</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doi.org/10.3390/app11156771</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/article/4dea0a28b612487f8c400c6c61ea877f</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="0"><subfield code="u">https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/11/15/6771</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="856" ind1="4" ind2="2"><subfield code="u">https://doaj.org/toc/2076-3417</subfield><subfield code="y">Journal toc</subfield><subfield code="z">kostenfrei</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_USEFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">SYSFLAG_A</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_DOAJ</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_11</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_20</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_22</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_23</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_24</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_39</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_40</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_60</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_62</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_63</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_65</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_69</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_70</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_73</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_95</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_105</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_110</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_151</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_161</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_170</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_171</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_213</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_230</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_285</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_293</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_370</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_602</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2014</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_2055</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4012</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4037</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4112</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4125</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4126</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4249</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4305</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4306</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4307</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4313</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4322</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4323</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4324</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4325</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4335</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4338</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4367</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="912" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">GBV_ILN_4700</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="951" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="a">AR</subfield></datafield><datafield tag="952" ind1=" " ind2=" "><subfield code="d">11</subfield><subfield code="j">2021</subfield><subfield code="e">15, p 6771</subfield></datafield></record></collection>
score	7.3996487

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Schreiben Sie uns!

Laser Management of Peri-Implantitis: A Comparison between Photodynamic Therapy Combined with Hydrogen Peroxide (OHLLT) and OHLLT + Er:YAG Laser. A Retrospective Controlled Study

Nicht das Richtige dabei?

Zugang & Verfügbarkeit

Vorhandene Bände

Nicht das Richtige dabei?