The use of diode laser and scalpel blade in stage-two dental implant surgery: a comparative study.

OBJECTIVE: The use of lasers in dental implant procedures raises questions regarding the preservation of keratinized tissues and implant outcomes. This study aimed to compare the clinical effects (pain and impression time) and soft tissue healing (keratinization, peri-implant probing, bleeding, and healing) of diode lasers and scalpels used during stage-two dental implant surgery. METHOD AND MATERIALS: A prospective randomized clinical trial with a 1:1 allocation ratio was conducted. The study included 30 patients, each with a single, fully osseointegrated implant. Patients were categorized into two groups. The study group underwent stage-two implant surgery using a 970-nm diode laser. In the control group, implants were exposed using a conventional surgical blade. A comparison between the diode laser and conventional scalpel groups was made based on clinical outcomes (pain and impression time) and soft tissue healing (keratinization, peri-implant probing, bleeding, and healing). Data were analyzed using a paired t test. RESULTS: Pain intensity significantly decreased from immediate postoperative to 7 days in both scalpel (49.87 ± 6.78, t = 28.48, df = 14, P .001) and diode laser (7.67 ± 7.58, t = 3.91, df = 14, P = .002) groups. Immediately after surgery, pain scores were significantly higher in the scalpel group compared with the diode laser group (94.53 ± 4.45 vs 46.93 ± 5.85, t = 25.076, df = 26.151, P .001). Although pain decreased in both groups by day 7, the scalpel group continued to exhibit significantly greater pain (44.67 ± 5.96 vs 39.27 ± 3.73, t = 2.974, df = 23.513, P = .007). Impression time (P = .231) and gingival keratinized tissue (P = .736) did not differ significantly between the scalpel and diode laser approaches. At week 6, the scalpel group exhibited a significantly higher mean peri-implant bleeding index (2.60 ± 0.507) compared with the laser group (0.07 ± 0.258, P .001). However, after 12 weeks, no significant difference was observed (1.58 ± 0.19 vs 1.55 ± 0.21, P = .748). Laser surgery produced significantly better early wound healing at all intervals (P .001), while intraoperative bleeding was more common with the scalpel technique than with the diode laser (100.0% vs 66.7%, P = .042). CONCLUSION: Compared with the scalpel method, the diode laser method resulted in a significant reduction in pain intensity, improved wound healing, and less peri-implant bleeding during the stage-two dental implant surgery.