Next Article in Journal
Quantitative Characterization of Age-Related Changes in Peripheral Vessels of a Human Palm Using Raster-Scan Optoacoustic Angiography
Previous Article in Journal
Dynamics of Fractional Vortex Beams at Fraunhofer Diffraction Zone
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Photonics
Volume 9
Issue 7
10.3390/photonics9070480
photonics-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Effect of Photodynamic Therapy on the Early Outcome of Implants Placed on Patients with Periodontitis

by
Pabbati Krishna Vardhan
1,
Rashmi Paramashivaiah
1,
Munivenkatappa Laxmaiah Venkatesh Prabhuji
1,
Shaeesta Khaleelahmed Bhavikatti
2,3,
Sakeenabi Basha
4,
Suraj Arora
5,
Syed Nahid Basheer
6,
Syed Wali Peeran
7,
Omir Aldowah
8,* and
Artak Heboyan
9
1
Department of Periodontology, Krishnadevaraya College of Dental Sciences, Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, Bangalore 562157, India
2
Department of Periodontics, Health Campus, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Kota Bharu 16150, Malaysia
3
Center for Transdisciplinary Research (CFTR), Saveetha Dental College and Hospitals, Saveetha Institute of Medical and Technical Sciences University, Chennai 600077, India
4
Department of Community Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, Taif University, P.O. Box 11099, Taif 21944, Saudi Arabia
5
Department of Restorative Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, King Khalid University, P.O. Box 960, Abha 61421, Saudi Arabia
6
Department of Restorative Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, Jazan University, Jazan 45142, Saudi Arabia
7
Department of Periodontics, Armed Forces Hospital, Jazan 82722, Saudi Arabia
8
Prosthetic Dental Science Department, Faculty of Dentistry, Najran University, P.O. Box 1988, Najran 11001, Saudi Arabia
9
Department of Prosthodontics, Faculty of Stomatology, Yerevan State Medical University after Mkhitar Heratsi, Str. Koryun 2, Yerevan 0025, Armenia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Photonics 2022, 9(7), 480; https://doi.org/10.3390/photonics9070480
Submission received: 19 May 2022 / Revised: 28 June 2022 / Accepted: 5 July 2022 / Published: 11 July 2022
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Background: Immediate implant is a subtype of implant that is placed following tooth extraction within the socket without further delay. These implants are known to preserve the alveolar bone and minimize the total number of surgical interventions in a patient. 4 Photodynamic therapy (PDT) augments nonsurgical periodontal therapy using antibacterial mechanisms. PTD can be more effective in conjunction with scaling and root planing (SRP). The aim of this study is to assess the effects of PDT on the early outcomes of implants placed on patients with periodontitis with and without SRP at 9 months of follow-up. Materials and methods: A total of 23 implants were placed in 14 patients, with 11 in the test group and 12 in the control group. SRP was carried out prior to immediate implant placement in control sites, and PDT adjunctive to SRP (SRP + PDT) was performed in test sites before immediate implant placement. Plaque index, gingival index, probing pocket depth, clinical attachment level, and radiovisiographs were procured at baseline, 3 months, 6 months, and 9 months. Primary stability was examined at the time of implant placement, and the healing index was recorded a week later. Results: At the end of the 9 months of the study period, (SRP + PDT) group had a mean marginal bone loss of 0.95 mm, and the control group had 1.08 mm. Clinical parameters such as plaque index, gingival index, clinical attachment level, and probing depth showed definitive improvement after 9 months, compared with the baseline, but when the test and control groups were compared, the difference was statistically significant for plaque index and probing depth. The implants in both groups were followed up for a period of 9 months. There was an improvement in marginal bone loss but was not statistically significant. The survival of immediate implants in the PDT group was not different from those in the scaling and root planing group. Conclusion: The effect of PTD can be beneficially used as an adjunct to SRP. However, the effects were not significant. Photodynamic therapy can be effectively used as an adjunct to SRP owing to the better outcomes using PDT.

1. Introduction

The main etiological factor of periodontal diseases is the bacterial biofilm [1]. Accordingly, periodontal therapy aims to reduce the accumulation of microbes by mechanically disrupting the subgingival biofilm [2,3]. Mechanical debridement (scaling and root planing (SRP)) by hand and/or using ultrasonic instruments can predictably achieve this goal in the majority of cases [4,5]. However, in some cases associated with the presence of A. actinomycetemcomitans [6] and/or P. gingivalis [7], SRP alone is often insufficient. This is due to the ability of these pathogens to penetrate the surrounding soft tissues. Additionally, Rabbani et al. [8] stated that SRP is bound to have some amount of residual plaque and calculus. In such clinical situations, topical or systemic antibiotics are frequently used [9,10,11,12,13].
Photodynamic therapy (PDT), which uses red light, infrared light, and diode lasers with a certain wavelength, is one way to reduce the number of microorganisms in the body [14,15]. The transfer of energy leads to the release of free oxygen radicals, which destroy bacteria and their by-products [16,17,18]. Several studies show statistically significant declines in the numbers of A. actinomycetemcomitans, P. gingivalis, and T. forsythia following the use of PDT [19,20,21,22,23]. On the other hand, it should be pointed out that conflicting results have been raised regarding the clinical and microbiological effects of PDT. Several studies [24,25,26,27,28] concluded that PDT can be effective when used in conjunction with mechanical debridement [19,23,27,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39]. Moreover, PDT has been claimed to be efficient in preventing the recolonization of periodontal pathogenic microorganisms subgingivally [40].
Many studies and systematic reviews with meta-analyses show evidence that a history of periodontitis is a major risk factor for implant failure [41,42,43,44,45]. Nevertheless, studies conducted in periodontally compromised patients provided encouraging results [46,47,48,49]. These studies reported survival rates of more than 90% over 5 to 10 years. However, it is important to note that these findings were based on different definitions of the presence or severity of periodontal disease, as well as the success and survival parameters.
In their meta-analysis, Chen et al. concluded that immediate implant placement into infected sites and noninfected sites in the aesthetic zone resulted in comparable survival rates, bone level, and gingiva level [50]. Similarly, another systematic review and meta-analysis stated that placing the immediate implants in compromised sites appeared not to decrease survival and success rates [51]. Randomized clinical trials on a large scale should be carried out, however, to determine with certainty whether this treatment protocol is safe and effective for damaged sockets.
The aim of this study is to assess the effects of photodynamic therapy on the early outcomes of implants placed on patients with periodontitis with and without SRP at 9 months of follow-up.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Ethics and Patient Consent

The study was approved by Krishnadevaraya College of Dental Sciences and the Hospital Ethical Committee, registered to CDSCO, India, and it was conducted in full accordance with the declared ethical principles (World Medical Association, Declaration of Helsinki, version VI, 2002). Informed consent was obtained from individual subjects after a detailed explanation of the procedure.

2.2. Patient Selection

A total of 14 subjects (8 males and 6 females) with 23 sites were included in this clinical research after satisfying the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Inclusion criteria were patients falling in class 1 or 2 of the American Society of Anesthesiology’s physical status classification, at least one maxillary or mandibular single-rooted tooth indicated for extraction due to chronic periodontitis, and patients with good oral hygiene maintenance. Exclusion criteria were patients below 20 years (owing to lack of complete skeletal maturity), aggressive periodontitis cases, teeth with inadequate supporting bones of less than 2 mm after extraction, Smokers, sites showing bony fenestrations and dehiscence, presence of any signs of active infections (abscess, draining fistula, etc.), teeth with close root proximity and near to anatomical structure, and any systemic disorders such as osteoporosis and uncontrolled diabetes mellitus.

2.3. Groups

After randomization, using a toss of coin method, participants were allocated to group A or group B.
Group A (test group): in this group, 8 subjects with 11 sites underwent photodynamic therapy along with nonsurgical periodontal therapy before immediate implant placement;
Group B (control group): in this group, 6 subjects with 12 sites underwent nonsurgical periodontal therapy in the form of SRP before immediate implant placement.
All participants were diagnosed with chronic periodontitis based on the levels of Clinical Attachment Loss (CAL) and probing pocket depth (PPD) according to the Armitage 1999 classification [13]. Most of the subjects included in this study were in the category of severe generalized chronic periodontitis.

2.4. Treatment Protocol

All subjects in the control group underwent thorough SRP using manual and ultrasonic instruments. For participants in the test group, a photosensitive dye, indocyanine green (EmunDo), was placed in the gingival sulcus for 1 min and then rinsed out. The EmunDo solution was prepared according to the manufacturer’s instructions at a concentration of 1 mg/mL and stored in the dark. Then, it was photoactivated with a laser (A.R.C LASER) beam (810 nm, 100 mw, and in continuous noncontact wave mode) by passing it both mesiodistally and apicocoronally in the pockets for 1 min (Figure 1A), after which the solution was thoroughly rinsed out. After rendering customized oral hygiene instructions, the individuals were sent with the instructions to report back after a period of 3 weeks. Before commencement of the clinical trial, basic parameters including plaque index (PI), gingival index (GI), clinical attachment level (CAL), and probing depth (PD) were recorded as baseline values.

2.5. Surgical Procedure

A preoperative radiovisiograph (RVG) was obtained at the planned site. Local anesthetic 2% lignocaine hydrochloride 1:80,000 epinephrine was administered, and atraumatic extraction of the tooth was performed. All of the infected granulation tissue in the extraction socket was curetted out, and the socket was rinsed with irrigation containing p povidone–iodine. The socket measurements (i.e., diameter and length) were procured with the help of a graduated UNC-15 probe, which aided in the selection of the size of the implant (Norris tuff TT, Endosseous implant).
A large precision drill was used initially to penetrate the base of the extraction socket, which acted as a guide for sequential drilling. Following sequential drilling, Lance Pilot Drills were used until a diameter of 3.2 mm. The drills were used at a speed ranging from 800 to 1200 rpm [14] with adequate cooling. Osteotomy improves the primary stability of the implant when it is placed into an extraction socket. Using a hand wrench, the implant was fixed, torque was measured, and the wrench was removed only after the torque if the desired level (>20 N/cm2) was reached. The implant was flushed with the marginal bone level (Figure 1B).
An RVG was taken to ascertain the proper implant placement, and only thereafter was the cover screw fixed. Primary closure of the flap was obtained via simple interrupted sutures (Figure 1C) and with the application of an ice pack for 3–5 h externally to the operated location, as instructed in the immediate postsurgical time. Postoperative medications comprising amoxicillin 500 mg TID, analgesic diclofenac potassium, and serratiopeptidase TID were prescribed for 5 days. In addition, 0.2% chlorhexidine mouth rinse was also prescribed twice daily for two weeks. The clinical parameters and the radiographic data were obtained at baseline (Figure 2A), 3 months (Figure 2B), 6 months (Figure 2C), and 9 months (Figure 2D).

2.6. Statistical Analysis

SPSS software for Windows, Version 16.0. (Chicago, IL, USA, SPSS Inc.), was used to analyze the data. Statistical analysis was performed by using tools of descriptive statistics, such as mean and SD, for representing quantitative data (angular measurement recorded in degrees). An independent t-test between two samples was used to compare the means of measurements of both experimental and control groups, respectively, at each interval (intergroup mean comparison at each interval). A one-way ANOVA test was applied to compare measurements of an experimental group recorded at three or more different time intervals. Similarly, the one-way ANONA test was applied to compare measurements of the control group recorded at three or more different time intervals. The probability of p < 0.05 was considered significant, and the alpha error was set at 5%, with a confidence interval of 95%. The post hoc data analysis, which followed one-way ANOVA, was performed by using Bonferroni’s multiple comparison test. A post hoc test was used to analyze multiple pairwise individual comparisons at two different time intervals each.

3. Results

A total of 23 implants were placed in 14 patients. Group A comprised 8 subjects with a total of 11 implants placed after NSPT in the form of SRP with adjunctive PDT, while Group B comprised 6 subjects with a total of 12 implants after SRP.

3.1. Age and Gender Distribution

For this study, 14 patients with a mean age of 47.18 years in the test group and 44 years in the control group were selected. In terms of the age distribution of the subjects, 47.82% were in the age group of 41–50 years, 26.1% were in the age group of 51–60 years, 21.73% were in the age group of 31–40 years, and 4.35% were in the age group of 21–30 years. As regards the gender distribution of the participants, 63.3% of the test group were males, and 36.7% were females; in the control group, 50% were males, and 50% were females.

3.2. Clinical Examination Data

None of the implants failed based on the parameters established by Buser et al. [52].
The intragroup comparison of the clinical parameters of the test group is depicted in Table 1. The repeated measurements of ANOVA, followed by Bonferroni’s post hoc test for PI, GI, PD, CAL, and marginal bone loss (MBL), are presented in Table 2 for the test group The intragroup comparison of the clinical parameters of the control group is shown in Table 3. The repeated measurements of ANOVA, followed by Bonferroni’s post hoc test for PI, GI, PD, CAL, and marginal bone loss (MBL), are presented in the Table 4 for the control group.
The intergroup comparison of the mean PI, GI, PD, CAL, and MBL in the test and control groups at baseline, 3 months, 6 months, and 9 months follow-up are presented in Table 5.
The mean probing depth reduction is elucidated in Scheme 1. The mean CAL and MBL (inter- and intragroup comparison) are reported in Scheme 2 and Scheme 3, respectively. The intergroup comparison of the mean primary stability values of the implants for the test and control groups is shown in Table 6.
The results revealed that conventional clinical parameters such as plaque index, gingival index, clinical attachment level, and probing depth showed definitive improvement after 9 months, compared with the baseline, but when the test and control groups were compared, the difference was not significant except for plaque index and probing depth. The implants in both groups were followed up for a period of 9 months. The difference in the marginal bone loss was not statistically significant (Table 5).
The survival of immediate implants in the PDT group was not different from that in the SRP group. The peri-implant soft and hard tissue conditions were healthy. All of the implants in both the test and control group survived, and the healing index measured by using the Lein Huin Hang index was found to be satisfactory in general.

4. Discussion

The aim of this study is to assess the effects of photodynamic therapy on the early outcomes of implants placed on patients with periodontitis with and without SRP at 9 months of follow-up. The morbidity or loss of teeth is one of the most alarming complications for a patient. Periodontal disease is among the primary causes of tooth loss. Periodontal disease is multifactorial, chronic, destructive, and inflammatory. It manifests as increased pocket depth as a result of alveolar bone loss, which may ultimately lead to tooth mobility and loss [53].
There is controversy surrounding the survival of implants placed in patients with a history of chronic periodontitis. Implants placed in periodontitis-affected sites frequently fail due to recolonization by pathogenic bacteria, according to the results of a number of clinical trials conducted in the past. Contrary to this finding, accumulating evidence suggests that the fate of implants placed in periodontitis sites is not significantly different from those placed in healthy sites [54]. In periodontitis patients, a variety of surgical and nonsurgical treatment methods are utilized. SRP is a common form of nonsurgical therapy, and various adjunctive therapies, such as systemic and local antimicrobials, have been tried to improve the efficacy of nonsurgical therapy. In the form of photodynamic therapy, the combination of laser light and photosensitizer dye has recently demonstrated promising results. The principle of photodynamic therapy is the activation of a photosensitizer dye placed in a periodontal pocket via irradiation with a laser emitting the appropriate wavelength. PDT has a number of advantages, including modulation of cytokines and MMPs and deeper oxygen penetration [55].
In the present study, an indocyanine green dye that belongs to the tricarbocyanine group and has an absorption band between 600 and 900 nanometers was utilized. It is claimed that the indocyanine green dye has a deeper tissue penetration, as it reduces the viable bacterial load significantly within the first week of use.
The success criteria for immediate implants were both radiographic and clinical. The primary implant stability, healing index, probing pocket depth, clinical attachment level, plaque index, and gingival index were meticulously documented. The most important radiographic parameter was the marginal alveolar bone level, the values of which were 0.95 0.41 mm and 1.08 0.44 mm in the test and control groups, respectively. Similarly, in a study by Adell et al. [56], Branemark osseointegrated implants were implanted, and the findings revealed that marginal bone loss was 1.5 mm in the first year, followed by a mean bone loss of 0.1 mm per year. Comparable to the findings of De Almeida et al. [57], the marginal bone loss was marginally lower in the test groups. Both the primary and secondary stability values of the implant were evaluated. The primary stability values of the implant in the present study, as measured with a torque wrench at the time of implant placement, were 31.81 ± 7.83 N/cm2 in the test group and 37.08 ± 6.55 N/cm2 in the control group. These values fell within the clinically acceptable range of grades 3 and 4 minimum insertion torque. The results were comparable to those of Kotsakis GA et al. [58]. However, the difference between the groups was not statistically significant.
All implants placed in the current study demonstrated a high level of osseointegration. Mean PI decreased from 2.51 ± 0.28 and 2.68 ± 0.24 at baseline to 1.70 ± 0.25 and 1.95 ± 0.26 at 9 months in the test group and control group, respectively, representing a statistically significant decrease in plaque when comparing intra and inter groups. Mean GI values were 2.45 ± 0.18 and 2.53 ± 0.28 at baseline in the test and control groups, respectively. These values decreased to 1.6 ± 0.36 and 1.79 ± 0.38 at 9 months in the test and control groups, respectively, which was statistically significant within each group from baseline to follow-up but not between groups. At baseline, the mean PD values for the test and control groups were 5.5 ± 0.89 mm and 4.8 ± 0.79 mm, respectively. These values decreased to 4.12 ± 0.84 mm and 3.36 ± 0.8 mm at 9 months in the test and control groups, respectively, which was statistically significant within the groups, and the intergroup comparison was also significant at 9 months. At baseline, the mean CAL values for the test and control groups were 8.8 ± 0.99 mm and 7.8 ± 0.81 mm, respectively. After 9 months, these values decreased to 6.92 ± 1.21 mm and 6.3 ± 0.54 mm, respectively. The differences in scores from baseline to nine months were statistically significant within the individual groups but were not statistically significant when compared across groups. All of the aforementioned clinical parameters and changes during the study period were consistent with the findings of Srikanth et al. [59] and Karimi et al. [60]. Photodisinfection is considered to be contributing to superior healing, but there was no difference in healing between the test group and control groups.
This randomized, controlled study compared the survival of immediate implants placed in periodontally compromised sites with and without adjunctive photodynamic therapy to nonsurgical periodontal therapy at 9 months of follow-up. Upon sequential examination using radiovisiography, the MBL was found to be less than 1.5 mm in both groups; however, after 9 months of follow-up, the test group had a statistically insignificant advantage over the control group with less bone loss. In general, primary stability values in the range of 30 to 45 N/cm2 were obtained, indicating complete osseointegration. There were no adverse complications related to implant healing.
In light of the positive results of this clinical trial, it can be concluded that a history of severe periodontal disease does not necessarily preclude the placement of immediate implants, so long as local accretions are meticulously removed. Photodynamic therapy might have increased the efficacy of conventional treatment but not to a measurable degree.

5. Conclusions

At the conclusion of this randomized, controlled clinical trial on the effect of photodynamic therapy prior to immediate implant placement in chronic periodontitis subjects, it is possible to infer that PDT may be beneficial as an adjunct to SRP. Additionally, the immediate implant placement in patients with a history of periodontitis is a very good treatment option, contrary to previous evidence. Within the given time frame, immediate implants seemed to have a good survival rate (100%). The adjunctive benefits of PDT are likely attributable to their inherent photooxidative mechanisms. An extended period of follow-up and a larger sample size could have given a clearer picture, but due to lack of feasibility, it was not possible. Periodontal disease does not necessarily result in implant failure if comprehensive nonsurgical treatment is administered, and PDT can improve the overall prognosis.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, P.K.V., M.L.V.P. and R.P.; methodology, P.K.V., R.P. and M.L.V.P.; software, P.K.V.; validation, R.P., M.L.V.P. and S.K.B.; formal analysis, P.K.V.; investigation, P.K.V., R.P. and S.K.B.; resources, P.K.V.; data curation, P.K.V., R.P., S.K.B., S.A., S.N.B. and O.A.; writing—original draft preparation, P.K.V. and S.K.B.; writing—review and editing, S.K.B. and A.H.; visualization, R.P., M.L.V.P., S.B., S.W.P. and A.H.; supervision, R.P. and M.L.V.P.; project administration, M.L.V.P.; funding acquisition, P.K.V., S.B., S.A., S.N.B., S.W.P., O.A. and A.H. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

This study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Institutional Ethical Committee, Krishnadevaraya College of Dental Sciences, and the Hospital Ethical Committee registered to CDSCO, India.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

The dataset used in the current study is available upon reasonable request.

Acknowledgments

The present research work was supported by the Deanship of Scientific Research at King Khalid University, Abha, Saudi Arabia, through Short Research Project under grant number RGP-1/347/43, and Taif University Researchers support project number TURSP-2020/62, Taif University, P.O. Box 11099, Taif 21944, Saudi Arabia.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Chiba, A.; Sugimoto, S.; Sato, F.; Hori, S.; Mizunoe, Y. A refined technique for ex- traction of extracellular matrices from bacterial biofilms and its applicability. Microb. Biotechnol. 2015, 8, 392–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Joseph, B.; Janam, P.; Narayanan, S.; Anil, S. Is Antimicrobial Photodynamic Therapy Effective as an Adjunct to Scaling and Root Planing in Patients with Chronic Periodontitis? A Systematic Review. Biomolecules 2017, 7, 79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Haffajee, A.D.; Socransky, S.S.; Gunsolley, J.C. Systemic Anti-Infective Periodontal Therapy. A Systematic Review. Ann. Periodontol. 2003, 8, 115–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Drisko, C.L.; Cochran, D.L.; Blieden, T.; Bouwsma, O.J.; Cohen, R.E.; Damoulis, P.; Fine, J.B.; Greenstein, G.; Hinrichs, J.; Somerman, M.J.; et al. Research, Science and Therapy Committee of the American Accademy of Periodon-tology, Position paper: Sonic and ultrasonic scalers in periodontics. Research, Science and Therapy Committee of the American Academy of Periodotology. J. Periodontol. 2000, 71, 1792–1801. [Google Scholar] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  5. Laleman, I.; Cortellini, S.; de Winter, S.; Herrero, E.R.; Dekeyser, C.; Quirynen, M.; Teughels, W. Subgingival deb-ridement: End point, methods and how often? Periodontology 2000 2017, 75, 189–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Rudney, J.D.; Chen, R.; Sedgewick, G.J. Intracellular Actinobacillus actinomyce- temcomitans and Porphyromonas gin-givalis in buccal epithelial cells collected from human subjects. Infect. Immun. 2001, 69, 2700–2707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Bostanci, N.; Belibasakis, G.N. Porphyromonas gingivalis: An invasive and evasive opportunistic oral pathogen. FEMS Microbiol. Lett. 2012, 333, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Rabbani, G.M.; Ash, M.M., Jr.; Caffesse, R.G. The Effectiveness of Subgingival Scaling and Root Planing in Calculus Removal. J. Periodontol. 1981, 52, 119–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Cobb, C.M. Non-Surgical Pocket Therapy: Mechanical. Ann. Periodontol. 1996, 1, 443–490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Gillies, M.; Ranakusuma, A.; Hoffmann, T.; Thorning, S.; McGuire, T.; Glasziou, P.; Del Mar, C. Common harms from amoxicillin: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized placebo-controlled trials for any indication. Can. Med. Assoc. J. 2014, 187, E21–E31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Grzech-Lesniak, K.; Matys, J.; Dominiak, M. Comparison of the clinical and micro- biological effects of antibiotic therapy in periodontal pockets following laser treatment: An in vivo study. Adv. Clin. Exp. Med. 2018, 2, 1263–1270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  12. Meimandi, M.; Ardakani, M.R.T.; Nejad, A.E.; Yousefnejad, P.; Saebi, K.; Tayeed, M.H. The effect of photodynamic therapy in the treatment of chronic periodontitis: A review of literature. J. Lasers Med. Sci. 2017, 8 (Suppl. 1), S7–S11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Van Winkelhoff, A.J.; Rams, T.E.; Slots, J. Systemic antibiotic therapy in periodontics. Periodontology 2000 1996, 10, 45–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Kumar, V.; Sinha, J.; Verma, N.; Nayan, K.; Saimbi, C.S.; Tripathi, A.K. Scope of photodynamic therapy in periodontics. Indian J. Dent. Res. 2015, 26, 439–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Dilsiz, A.; Canakci, V.; Aydin, T. Clinical effects of potassium-titanyl-phosphate laser and photodynamic therapy on out-comes of treatment of chronic periodontitis: A randomized controlled clinical trial. J. Periodontol. 2013, 84, 278–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Dobson, J.; Wilson, M. Sensitization of oral bacteria in biofilms to killing by light from a low-power laser. Arch. Oral Biol. 1992, 37, 883–887. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Komerik, N.; Nakanishi, H.; MacRobert, A.J.; Henderson, B.; Speight, P.; Wilson, M. In vivo killing of Porphyromonas gin-givalis by toluidine blue-mediated photo- sensitization in an animal model. Antimicrob. Agents Chemother. 2003, 47, 932–940. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Sharman, W.M.; Allen, C.M.; van Lier, J.E. Photodynamic therapeutics: Basic principles and clinical applications. Drug Discov. Today 1999, 4, 507–517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Petelin, M.; Perkic, K.; Seme, K.; Gaspirc, B. Effect of repeated adjunctive anti- microbial photodynamic therapy on sub-gingival periodontal pathogens in the treatment of chronic periodontitis. Lasers Med. Sci. 2015, 30, 1647–1656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Akram, Z.; Al-Shareef, S.A.; Daood, U.; Asiri, F.Y.; Shah, A.H.; AlQahtani, M.A.; Vohra, F.; Javed, F. Bactericidal efficacy of photodynamic therapy against periodontal pathogens in periodontal disease: A systematic review. Photomed. Laser Surg. 2016, 34, 137–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Moreira, A.L.; Novaes, A.B., Jr.; Grisi, M.F.; Taba, M., Jr.; Souza, S.L.; Palioto, D.B.; de Oliveira, P.G.; Casati, M.Z.; Casarin, R.C.; Messora, M.R. Antimicrobial photo- dynamic therapy as an adjunct to non-surgical treatment of aggressive periodontitis: A split-mouth randomized controlled trial. J. Periodontol. 2015, 86, 376–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Novaes, A.B., Jr.; Schwartz-Filho, H.O.; De Oliveira, R.R.; Feres, M.; Sato, S.; Figueiredo, L.C. Antimicrobial photodynamic therapy in the non-surgical treatment of aggressive periodontitis: Microbiological profile. Lasers Med. Sci. 2011, 27, 389–395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Theodoro, L.H.; Silva, S.P.; Pires, J.R.; Soares, G.H.G.; Pontes, A.E.; Zuza, E.; Spolidorio, D.M.P.; De Toledo, B.E.C.; Garcia, V. Clinical and microbiological effects of photodynamic therapy associated with nonsurgical periodontal treatment. A 6-month follow-up. Lasers Med. Sci. 2011, 27, 687–693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Atieh, M.A. Photodynamic therapy as an adjunctive treatment for chronic periodontitis: A meta-analysis. Lasers Med. Sci. 2010, 25, 605–613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Balata, M.L.; Andrade, L.P.; Santos, D.B.; Cavalcanti, A.N.; Uda, R.T.; Edel, P.R.; Bittencourt, S. Photodynamic therapy associated with full-mouth ultrasonic debridement in the treatment of severe chronic periodontitis: A randomized controlled clinical trial. J. Appl. Oral Sci. 2013, 21, 208–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Malik, R.; Manocha, A.; Suresh, D.K. Photodynamic therapy—A strategic review. Indian J. Dent. Res. 2010, 21, 285–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Polansky, R.; Haas, M.; Heschl, A.; Wimmer, G. Clinical effectiveness of photo- dynamic therapy in the treatment of periodontitis. J. Clin. Periodontol. 2009, 36, 575–580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Sgolastra, F.; Petrucci, A.; Gatto, R.; Marzo, G.; Monaco, A. Photodynamic therapy in the treatment of chronic periodontitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Lasers Med. Sci. 2011, 28, 669–682. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Filho, G.A.N.; Casarin, R.C.; Casati, M.Z.; Giovani, E.M. PDT in non-surgical treatment of periodontitis in HIV patients: A split-mouth, randomized clinical trial. Lasers Surg. Med. 2012, 44, 296–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Birang, R.; Shahaboui, M.; Kiani, S.; Shadmehr, E.; Naghsh, N. Effect of Nonsurgical Periodontal Treatment Combined With Diode Laser or Photodynamic Therapy on Chronic Periodontitis: A Randomized Controlled Split-Mouth Clinical Trial. J. Lasers Med. Sci. 2015, 6, 112–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Cappuyns, I.; Cionca, N.; Wick, P.; Giannopoulou, C.; Mombelli, A. Treatment of re- sidual pockets with photodynamic therapy, diode laser, or deep scaling. A rando- mized, split-mouth controlled clinical trial. Lasers Med. Sci. 2012, 27, 979–986. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  32. Carvalho, V.F.; Andrade, P.V.; Rodrigues, M.F.; Hirata, M.H.; Hirata, R.D.; Pannuti, C.M.; de Micheli, G.; Conde, M.C. An-timicrobial photodynamic effect to treat residual pockets in periodontal patients: A randomized controlled clinical trial. J. Clin. Periodontol. 2015, 42, 440–447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Chitsazi, M.T.; Shirmohammadi, A.; Pourabbas, R.; Abolfazli, N.; Farhoudi, I.; Azar, B.D.; Farhadi, F. Clinical and Microbiological Effects of Photodynamic Therapy Associated with Non-surgical Treatment in Aggressive Periodontitis. J. Dent. Res. Dent. Clin. Dent. Prospect. 2014, 8, 153–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Christodoulides, N.; Nikolidakis, D.; Chondros, P.; Becker, J.; Schwarz, F.; Rössler, R.; Sculean, A. Photodynamic Therapy as an Adjunct to Non-Surgical Periodontal Treatment: A Randomized, Controlled Clinical Trial. J. Periodontol. 2008, 79, 1638–1644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Jung, G.-U.; Kim, J.-W.; Kim, S.-J.; Pang, E.-K. Effects of adjunctive daily phototherapy on chronic periodontitis: A randomized single-blind controlled trial. J. Periodontal Implant Sci. 2014, 44, 280–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. Kolbe, M.F.; Ribeiro, F.V.; Luchesi, V.H.; Casarin, R.C.; Sallum, E.A.; Nociti, F.; Ambrosano, G.M.; Cirano, F.; Pimentel, S.P.; Casati, M.Z. Photodynamic Therapy During Supportive Periodontal Care: Clinical, Microbiologic, Immunoinflammatory, and Patient-Centered Performance in a Split-Mouth Randomized Clinical Trial. J. Periodontol. 2014, 85, e277–e286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Luchesi, V.H.; Pimentel, S.P.; Kolbe, M.F.; Ribeiro, F.V.; Casarin, R.C.; Nociti, E.A., Jr.; Sallum, F.H.; Casati, M.Z. Photodynamic therapy in the treatment of class II furca- tion: A randomized controlled clinical trial. J. Clin. Periodontol. 2013, 40, 781–788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Rühling, A.; Fanghänel, J.; Houshmand, M.; Kuhr, A.; Meisel, P.; Schwahn, C.; Kocher, T. Photodynamic therapy of persistent pockets in maintenance patients—A clinical study. Clin. Oral Investig. 2009, 14, 637–644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Sreedhar, A.; Sarkar, I.; Rajan, P.; Pai, J.; Malagi, S.; Kamath, V.; Barmappa, R. Comparative evaluation of the efficacy of curcumin gel with and without photo activation as an adjunct to scaling and root planing in the treatment of chronic periodontitis: A split mouth clinical and microbiological study. J. Nat. Sci. Biol. Med. 2015, 6, S102–S109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Chan, Y.; Lai, C.-H. Bactericidal effects of different laser wavelengths on periodontopathic germs in photodynamic therapy. Lasers Med. Sci. 2003, 18, 51–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Sgolastra, F.; Petrucci, A.; Severino, M.; Gatto, R.; Monaco, A. Periodontitis, implant loss and peri-implantitis. A meta-analysis. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2015, 26, e8–e16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Chrcanovic, B.R.; Albrektsson, T.; Wennerberg, A. Periodontally compromised vs. periodontally healthy patients and dental implants: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Dent. 2014, 42, 1509–1527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Smith, M.M.; Knight, E.T.; Al-Harthi, L.; Leichter, J.W. Chronic periodontitis and implant dentistry. Periodontology 2000 2017, 74, 63–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Roccuzzo, M.; Bonino, L.; Dalmasso, P.; Aglietta, M. Long-term results of a three arms prospective cohort study on implants in periodontally compromised patients: 10-year data around sandblasted and acid-etched (SLA) surface. Clin. Oral Implant. Res. 2013, 25, 1105–1112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Buhara, O.; Pehlivan, S. Monte Carlo simulation of reasons for early failure of implants: Effects of two risk factors. Br. J. Oral Maxillofac. Surg. 2018, 57, 12–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Meyle, J.; Gersok, G.; Boedeker, R.-H.; Gonzales, J.R. Long-term analysis of osseointegrated implants in non-smoker patients with a previous history of periodontitis. J. Clin. Periodontol. 2014, 41, 504–512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Graetz, C.; El-Sayed, K.F.; Geiken, A.; Plaumann, A.; Sälzer, S.; Behrens, E.; Wiltfang, J.; Dörfer, C.E. Effect of periodontitis history on implant success: A long-term evaluation during supportive periodontal therapy in a university setting. Clin. Oral Investig. 2017, 22, 235–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Li, S.; Di, P.; Zhang, Y.; Lin, Y. Immediate implant and rehabilitation based on All-on-4 concept in patients with generalized aggressive periodontitis: A medium-term prospective study. Clin. Implant Dent. Relat. Res. 2017, 19, 559–571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Correia, F.; Gouveia, S.; Felino, A.C.; Costa, A.L.; Almeida, R.F. Survival rate of dental implants in patients with history of per-iodontal disease: A retrospective cohort study. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implant. 2017, 32, 927–934. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Chen, H.; Zhang, G.; Weigl, P.; Gu, X. Immediate placement of dental implants into infected versus noninfected sites in the esthetic zone: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2018, 120, 658–667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Amid, R.; Kadkhodazadeh, M.; Moscowchi, A. Immediate implant placement in compromised sockets: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Prosthet. Dent. 2021; in press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  52. Buser, D.; Janner, S.F.M.; Wittneben, J.-G.; Brägger, U.; Ramseier, C.A.; Salvi, G.E. 10-Year Survival and Success Rates of 511 Titanium Implants with a Sandblasted and Acid-Etched Surface: A Retrospective Study in 303 Partially Edentulous Patients. Clin. Implant Dent. Relat. Res. 2012, 14, 839–851. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Newman, M.G.; Takei, H.; Klokkevold, P.R.; Carranza, F.A. Carranza’s Clinical Periodontology; Elsevier Health Sciences: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  54. Shahabouee, M.; Rismanchian, M.; Yaghini, J.; Babashahi, A.; Badrian, H.; Goroohi, H. Microflora around teeth and dental implants. Dent. Res. J. 2012, 9, 215. [Google Scholar]
  55. Pazos, M.D.C.; Nader, H.B. Effect of photodynamic therapy on the extracellular matrix and associated components. Braz. J. Med. Biol. Res. 2007, 40, 1025–1035. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Adell, R.; Lekholm, U.; Rockler, B.; Brånemark, P.-I. A 15-year study of osseointegrated implants in the treatment of the edentulous jaw. Int. J. Oral Surg. 1981, 10, 387–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. De Almeida, J.M.; Theodoro, L.H.; Bosco, A.F.; Nagata, M.J.; Oshiiwa, M.; Garcia, V.G. Influence of photodynamic therapy on the development of ligature-induced periodontitis in rats. J. Periodontol. 2007, 78, 566–575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Kotsakis, G.; Salama, M.; Chrepa, V.; Hinrichs, J.E.; Gaillard, P. A Randomized, Blinded, Controlled Clinical Study of Particulate Anorganic Bovine Bone Mineral and Calcium Phosphosilicate Putty Bone Substitutes for Socket Preservation. Int. J. Oral Maxillofac. Implant. 2014, 29, 141–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  59. Srikanth, K.; Chandra, R.V.; Reddy, A.A.; Reddy, B.H.; Reddy, C.; Naveen, A. Effect of a single session of antimicrobial photo-dynamic therapy using indocyanine green in the treatment of chronic periodontitis: A randomized controlled pilot trial. Quintessence Int. 2015, 46, 391–400. [Google Scholar]
  60. Karimi, M.R.; Hassani, A.; Khosroshahian, S. Efficacy of Antimicrobial Photodynamic Therapy as an Adjunctive to Mechanical Debridement in the Treatment of Peri-implant Diseases: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial. J. Lasers Med. Sci. 2016, 7, 139–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Photonics 09 00480 g001 550
Figure 1. (A) Photodynamic therapy; (B) implants placed after extraction; (C) sutures placed.
Figure 1. (A) Photodynamic therapy; (B) implants placed after extraction; (C) sutures placed.
Photonics 09 00480 g001
Photonics 09 00480 g002 550
Figure 2. (A) Radiovisiograph of test site baseline; (B) radiovisiograph of test site at 3 months; (C) radiovisiograph of test site at 6 months; (D) radiovisiograph of test site at 9 months.
Figure 2. (A) Radiovisiograph of test site baseline; (B) radiovisiograph of test site at 3 months; (C) radiovisiograph of test site at 6 months; (D) radiovisiograph of test site at 9 months.
Photonics 09 00480 g002
Photonics 09 00480 sch001 550
Scheme 1. Intergroup comparison of mean pocket depth (in millimeters).
Scheme 1. Intergroup comparison of mean pocket depth (in millimeters).
Photonics 09 00480 sch001
Photonics 09 00480 sch002 550
Scheme 2. Intergroup comparison of mean clinical attachment level.
Scheme 2. Intergroup comparison of mean clinical attachment level.
Photonics 09 00480 sch002
Photonics 09 00480 sch003 550
Scheme 3. Intergroup comparison of marginal bone loss.
Scheme 3. Intergroup comparison of marginal bone loss.
Photonics 09 00480 sch003
Table
Table 1. Intragroup comparison of clinical parameters of test group.
Table 1. Intragroup comparison of clinical parameters of test group.
Baseline3 Month6 Months9 MonthsANOVA F Valuep Value
(Significance)
Mean (S.D)Mean (S.D)Mean (S.D)Mean (S.D)
Plaque index score (PI)2.51 (0.28)1.43 (0.27)1.53 (0.34)1.70 (0.25)<0.001 **p < 0.001
Gingival index score (GI)2.45 (0.18)1.34 (0.18)1.43 (0.34)1.6 (0.36)<0.001 **p < 0.001
Pocket depth
(PD)		5.55 (0.89)4.6 (1.02)4.2 (0.88)4.12 (0.84)<0.001 **p = 0.002
Clinical attachment loss (CAL)8.82 (0.99)7.88 (0.85)7.19 (1.07)6.9 (1.21)<0.001 **p = 0.001
MBL0.0 (0.0)0.41 (0.37)0.69 (0.36)0.95 (0.41)<0.001 **p < 0.001
** highly significant.
Table
Table 2. Repeated measurements of ANOVA followed by Bonferroni’s Post-hoc test (Plaque index, Gingival index, Probing depth, Clinical attachment level, Marginal bone loss) for test group.
Table 2. Repeated measurements of ANOVA followed by Bonferroni’s Post-hoc test (Plaque index, Gingival index, Probing depth, Clinical attachment level, Marginal bone loss) for test group.
Baseline vs.
3 Months		Baseline vs.
6 Months		Baseline vs.
9 Months		3 Months vs.
6 Months		3 Months vs.
9 Months		6 Months vs.
9 Months
Plaque index
Mean
Difference		1.080.980.800.10.270.17
p valuep < 0.001p < 0.001p < 0.0010.8540.1460.518
GI score
Mean
Difference		1.1091.0180.8540.090.250.16
p valuep < 0.001p < 0.001p < 0.0010.8710.1610.525
PD score
Mean
Difference		0.911.351.420.430.500.07
p valuep = 0.103p = 0.007p = 0.0040.6800.5650.998
CAL score
Mean
Difference		0.941.631.90.690.950.26
p valuep = 0.163p = 0.004p = 0.0010.4160.1560.934
MBL score
Mean
Difference		0.410.690.950.270.530.26
p valuep = 0.028p < 0.001p < 0.0010.2200.030.274
Table
Table 3. Intragroup comparison of clinical parameters in control group.
Table 3. Intragroup comparison of clinical parameters in control group.
Baseline3 Months6 Months9 MonthsANOVA F Valuep Value
(Significance)
Mean (S.D)Mean (S.D)Mean (S.D)Mean (S.D)
Plaque index score (PI)2.68 (0.24)1.73 (0.34)1.87 (0.32)1.95 (0.26)24.644p < 0.001
Gingival index score (GI)2.53 (0.28)1.36 (0.28)1.53 (0.32)1.79 (0.38)30.818p < 0.001
Pocket depth
(PD)		4.82 (0.79)4.12 (0.73)3.8 (0.94)3.3 (0.80)6.697p = 0.001
Clinical attachment loss (CAL)7.9 (0.81)7.21 (0.71)6.9 (0.88)6.3 (0.54)9.438p < 0.001
MBL0.0 (0.0)0.40 (0.21)0.74 (0.32)1.08 (0.44)29.341p < 0.001
Table
Table 4. Results of repeated-measures ANOVA, followed by Bonferroni’s post hoc test (plaque index, gingival index, pocket depth (PD), clinical attachment level, and marginal bone loss) for control group.
Table 4. Results of repeated-measures ANOVA, followed by Bonferroni’s post hoc test (plaque index, gingival index, pocket depth (PD), clinical attachment level, and marginal bone loss) for control group.
Baseline vs.
3 Months		Baseline vs.
6 Months		Baseline vs.
9 Months		3 Months vs.
6 Months		3 Months vs.
9 Months		6 Months vs.
9 Months
Plaque index
Mean
Difference		0.950.800.720.140.220.083
p valuep < 0.001p < 0.001p < 0.0010.6470.2590.901
GI score
Mean
Difference		1.161.00.7410.160.4250.25
p valuep < 0.001p < 0.001p < 0.0010.5870.0120.216
PD score
Mean
Difference		0.701.011.450.310.750.07
p valuep = 0.173p = 0.020p < 0.0010.7810.1230.557
CAL score
Mean
Difference		0.681.01.60.310.910.60
p valuep = 0.132p = 0.011p < 0.0010.7320.0230.220
MBL score
Mean
Difference		0.400.741.080.3350.6840.348
p valuep = 0.009p < 0.001p < 0.0010.040.030.031
Table
Table 5. Intergroup comparison of mean PI, GI, PD, CAL, and MBL in test and control groups at different time intervals (baseline, 3 months, 6 months, and 9 months, respectively).
Table 5. Intergroup comparison of mean PI, GI, PD, CAL, and MBL in test and control groups at different time intervals (baseline, 3 months, 6 months, and 9 months, respectively).
Baseline3 Month6 Month9 Month
Plaque Index
Test group (n = 11)Mean (SD)2.51 (0.28)1.43 (0.27)1.53 (0.34)1.79 (0.25)
Control group
(n = 12)		Mean (SD)2.68 (0.24)1.73 (0.34)1.87 (0.32)1.95 (0.26)
Independent t testp value0.150.0340.0240.032
Gingival Index
Test group (n = 11)Mean (SD)2.45 (0.18)1.34 (0.18)1.43 (0.34)1.6 (0.36)
Control group
(n = 12)		Mean (SD)2.53 (0.28)1.36 (0.28)1.53 (0.32)1.79 (0.38)
Independent t testp value0.4370.8350.4930.234
Pocket Depth
Test group (n = 11)Mean (SD)5.5 (0.89)4.63 (1.02)4.2 (0.88)4.12 (0.84)
Control group (n = 12)Mean (SD)4.8 (0.79)4.12 (0.73)3.8 (0.94)3.36 (0.80)
Independent t testp value0.0510.1810.3170.038
Clinical Attachment Level
Test group (n = 11)Mean (SD)8.8 (0.99)7.88 (0.85)7.19 (1.07)6.92 (1.21)
Control group
(n = 12)		Mean (SD)7.9 (0.81)7.21 (0.71)6.9 (0.88)6.3 (0.54)
Independent t testp value0.0230.0490.4850.119
Marginal Bone Loss
Test group (n = 11)Mean (SD)0.0 (0.0)0.41 (0.37)0.69 (0.36)0.95 (0.41)
Control group
(n = 12)		Mean (SD)0.0 (0.0)0.40 (0.21)0.74 (0.32)1.08 (0.44)
Independent t testp value-------0.9300.7500.462
Table
Table 6. Intergroup comparison of mean primary stability in test and control groups.
Table 6. Intergroup comparison of mean primary stability in test and control groups.
GroupsBaseline
Test Group (n = 11) Mean
(SD)		31.81
(7.83)
Control Group (n = 12) Mean
(SD)		37.08
(6.55)
Independent t test p value0.094
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Vardhan, P.K.; Paramashivaiah, R.; Prabhuji, M.L.V.; Bhavikatti, S.K.; Basha, S.; Arora, S.; Basheer, S.N.; Peeran, S.W.; Aldowah, O.; Heboyan, A. The Effect of Photodynamic Therapy on the Early Outcome of Implants Placed on Patients with Periodontitis. Photonics 2022, 9, 480. https://doi.org/10.3390/photonics9070480

AMA Style

Vardhan PK, Paramashivaiah R, Prabhuji MLV, Bhavikatti SK, Basha S, Arora S, Basheer SN, Peeran SW, Aldowah O, Heboyan A. The Effect of Photodynamic Therapy on the Early Outcome of Implants Placed on Patients with Periodontitis. Photonics. 2022; 9(7):480. https://doi.org/10.3390/photonics9070480

Chicago/Turabian Style

Vardhan, Pabbati Krishna, Rashmi Paramashivaiah, Munivenkatappa Laxmaiah Venkatesh Prabhuji, Shaeesta Khaleelahmed Bhavikatti, Sakeenabi Basha, Suraj Arora, Syed Nahid Basheer, Syed Wali Peeran, Omir Aldowah, and Artak Heboyan. 2022. "The Effect of Photodynamic Therapy on the Early Outcome of Implants Placed on Patients with Periodontitis" Photonics 9, no. 7: 480. https://doi.org/10.3390/photonics9070480

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop