Literature Review
Nd:YAG laser clinical studies on Periodontal Pocket Treatment
| Author & Year | Laser Parameters | Findings |
| Horton & Lin 1992 | 2 W 100 mJ/pulse, 20 Hz 2 min |
Laser was equally or more effective than SRP in reducing or inhibiting recolonization of specific bacterial species for pocket treatment (CT, 15 patients, 45 segments). |
| Gold & Vilardi 1994 | 1.25 and 1.75 W 62.5 and 87.5 mJ/pulse, 20 Hz |
Laser removed pocket lining epithelium in periodontal pockets, without causing necrosis or carbonization of the underlying connective tissue (Case series, 6 patients, 24 specimens). |
| Neil & Mellonig 1997 |
2 W 80 mJ/pulse, 25 Hz |
Similar reduction of probing depth was observed after SRP plus laser therapy and SRP alone, but SRP plus laser therapy showed significantly higher improvements in gingival index and gingival bleeding index (RCT in a split-mouth design, 10 patients, 186 teeth). |
| Noguchi et al. 2005 | 200 mJ/pulse 10 Hz, for 90 sec | L= Nd:YAG laser : The mean value of the pocket probing depth (PPD) significantly decreased in Group L, Group LP and Group LI, and the mean clinical attachment loss (CAL) decreased in all three treatment groups. LP showed the most improvement in PPD or CAL at 3 months. The proportions of P.g, Tannerella forsythia (formerly Bacteroides forsythus) and P.i were significantly lower |
Er:YAG laser basic studies on Root Substance removal and Root Surface Alteration
| Author & Year | Laser Parameters | Findings |
| Folwaczny et al. 2000 | 60–150 mJ/pulse (7.3–18.2 J/cm2per pulse*) 15 Hz, water spray 30 contact (chisel tip) |
Root substance removal comparable to conventional instrumentation and selective calculus ablation at lower energy level up to 100 mJ/pulse (12.2 J/cm2 per pulse) |
| Gaspirc & Skaleric 2001 |
60–100 mJ/pulse (11.9–19.9 J/cm2 per pulse*) 10 Hz, no water Noncontact |
Influence on the morphology and diffusion process of root surfaces and no changes in the chemical structure of the root surface |
Er:YAG laser basic studies on removal of Subgingival Calculus
| Author & Year | Laser Parameters | Findings |
| Aoki et al. 1994 | 10–120 mJ/pulse (3.5–42.4 J/cm2 per pulse) 10 Hz, water irrigation 90 contact (round-end tip) |
Effective subgingival calculus removal at 10.6 J/cm2 per pulse with little temperature increase and minimum cementum ablation |
| Keller & Hibst 1995 | 50 mJ/pulse (18 J/cm2 per pulse), 1.5 or 3 Hz, water irrigation 90 contact (round-end tip) |
Effective calculus removal at 18 J/cm2 per pulse without greater damage to the cementum |
| Keller & Hibst 1997 | 120 or 150 mJ/pulse (15.0 or 18.8 J/cm2 per pulse*) 10 or 15 Hz, water spray 20 or 40 contact (chisel tip) |
Effective calculus removal with a chisel-type tip without thermal alteration of the root surface |
| Aoki et al. 2000 | 40 mJ/pulse (14.2 J/cm2 per pulse) 10 Hz, water spray 30 contact (round-end tip) |
Calculus removal ability comparable to ultrasonic scaling |
| Folwaczny et al. 2000 | 60–150 mJ/pulse (7.3–18.2 J/cm2 per pulse*) 15 Hz, water spray 30 contact (chisel tip) |
Complete calculus removal without thermal change of root surface |
| Frentzen et al. 2002 | 100 or 120 mJ/pulse (18.8 or 14.5 J/cm2 per pulse*) 10 Hz, water spray 20 contact (chisel tip) |
Clinically adequate debridement without carbonization or other side-effects of clinical relevance. |
| Schwarz et al. 2003 | 120 mJ/pulse (14.5 J/cm2*) 10 Hz, water spray 15–20 contact (chisel tip) |
In vivo selective subgingival calculus removal to a level equivalent to that provided by scaling and root planing |
