Surface properties of endosseous dental implants after NdYAG and CO2 laser treatment at various energies.

OBJECTIVES: Dental lasers have been used for uncovering submerged implants as well as decontaminating implant surfaces when treating peri-implantitis. The objective of this study was to compare the possible alterations of the smooth surface and resorbable blast material (RBM) surface implants after using NdYAG and CO(2) lasers at various energies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ten smooth surface implants and 10 RBM surface implants were used. Two smooth surface implants and 2 RBM surface implants served as a control group that was not lased. The remaining implants were treated using NdYAG and CO(2) lasers. The surface of each implant was treated for 10 seconds on the second and third threads. The smooth surface implants (group 1) were treated using a pulsed contact NdYAG laser at power settings of 1, 2, 3.5, and 5 W, which are commonly used for soft tissue surgery; the corresponding energy and frequency were 50 mJ and 20 Hz, 100 mJ and 20 Hz, 350 mJ and 10 Hz, and 250 mJ and 20 Hz, respectively. The group 2 RBM implants were treated using a pulsed contact NdYAG laser. The group 3 smooth surface implants were treated using a pulsed wave non-contact CO(2) laser at 1, 2, 3.5, and 5 W, and the group 4 RBM implants were treated using a pulsed wave non-contact CO(2) laser. Data were analyzed using scanning electron microscopy. RESULTS: The control surface was very regular and smooth. After NdYAG laser treatment, the implant surface showed alterations of all the surfaces. The amount of damage was proportional to the power. A remarkable finding was the similarity of the lased areas on the smooth and RBM surfaces. CO(2) laser at power settings of 1.0 or 2.0 W did not alter the implant surface, regardless of implant type. At settings of 3.5 and 5 W, there was destruction of the micromachined groove and gas formation. CONCLUSION: This study supports that CO(2) laser treatment appears more useful than NdYAG laser treatment and CO(2) laser does not damage titanium implant surface, which should be of value when uncovering submerged implants and treating peri-implantitis.     

High-Risk Cutaneous Squamous Cell Carcinoma without Palpable Lymphadenopathy: Is There a Therapeutic Role for Elective Neck Dissection?

PURPOSE: The beneficial role of elective neck dissection (END) in the management of high-risk cutaneous squamous cell carcinoma (CSCC) of the head and neck remains unproven. Some surgical specialists suggest that END may be beneficial for patients with clinically node-negative (N0) high-risk CSCC, but there are few data to support this claim. We reviewed the available literature regarding the use of END in the management of both CSCC and head and neck SCC (HNSCC). METHODOLOGY: The available medical literature pertaining to END in both CSCC and HNSCC was reviewed using PubMed and Ovid Medline searches. RESULTS: Many surgical specialists recommend that END be routinely performed in patients with N0 HNSCC when the risk of occult metastases is estimated to exceed 20%; however, patients who undergo END have no proven survival benefit over those who are initially staged as N0 and undergo therapeutic neck dissection (TND) after the development of apparent regional disease. There is a lack of data regarding the proper management of regional nodal basins in patients with N0 CSCC. In the absence of evidence-based data, the cutaneous surgeon must rely on clinical judgment to guide the management of patients with N0 high-risk CSCC of the head and neck. CONCLUSIONS: Appropriate work-up for occult nodal disease may occasionally be warranted in patients with high-risk CSCC. END may play a role in only a very limited number of patients with high-risk CSCC.