Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
AIM: The aim is to compare the clinical efficacy of diode laser and erbium, chromium-doped yttrium, scandium, gallium, and garnet (Er, Cr:YSGG) laser for implant stage 2 recovery procedure. MATERIALS AND METHODS: = 10) was the third group. The pain assessment was recorded using visual analog scale (VAS scale), time taken for the procedure, intra-operative bleeding, time taken for healing were recorded for the three groups. CONCLUSION: Considering the advantages of both these laser systems such as less anesthesia, less surgical trauma and faster healing, and post-operative comfort, lasers are an effective tool for implant stage two recovery techniques. However, since diode lasers are more cost effective when compared to Er, Cr:YSGG, diode lasers may meet the clinical needs when compared to hard-tissue lasers.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Selvaganesh et al. (2021) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: