Comparative evaluation of postoperative pain and tissue response in patients undergoing conventional flap surgeries with or without 940 nm diode laser exposure ‑ A randomized clinical study

Over the past few years, a growing body of evidence has allowed us to ascertain that the initiation of periodontitis stems from the existence of oral microbial biofilm and that this requires definitive treatment. Owing to its exceptional usability, affordability, and antibacterial activity, the “diode laser” (DL) has increasingly become a popular and important tool in a dentist’s armamentarium. However, there is a scarcity of scientific evidence on the utility and advantages of using “diode laser” in periodontal flap surgery. The study aimed to determine the efficacy of 940 nm diode laser exposure in combination with conventional periodontal flap surgery for the treatment of chronic periodontitis to evaluate postoperative discomfort and clinical parameters.

A total of 10 subjects (7 males and 3 females) with generalized chronic periodontitis were recruited and completed the study without any dropouts. For this split‑mouth study, 40 sample sites with pocket probing depth (PPD) 5–7 mm post periodontal Phase I therapy were selected. The quadrants were randomly allocated to Groups A, B, C, and D using the fish bowl lottery method. Kirkland flap surgery with laser and modified Widman flap (MWF) with laser were performed in Group A and C, respectively, while Kirkland flap surgery and MWF surgery were performed in Group B and Group D. Clinical parameters including visual analog scale (VAS) score and gingival inflammation were determined at 3rd and 7th day postoperatively while PPD, clinical attachment level (CAL), and sulcus bleeding index (SBI) were recorded at baseline and 6 months following treatment. Wilcoxon signed‑rank test and Kruskal–Wallis test were used for intra‑group and inter‑group comparison of parameters, respectively.

Statistically significant difference was attained with postoperative discomfort in laser‑assisted groups on 1st and 3rd day postoperatively (P < 0.001). There was no significant difference in the proportion of subjects with gingival inflammation. A statistically significant reduction in mean PPD at 6 months postoperatively was seen among all study groups (P < 0.05) but the inter‑group difference was not statistically significant. SBI score reduced significantly from baseline to 6 months follow‑up among all four groups (P < 0.05). However, we did not find the inter‑group difference to be statistically non‑significant.

Diode laser as an adjunct to the surgical procedure can demonstrate appreciable benefits by increasing the CAL and minimizing the postoperative pain and the probing pocket, but such additional effects were not observed with gingival inflammation.