user report | In your opinion, what are the main benefi ts of choos- ing a laser system that includes two complementary wavelengths, such as Er:YAG and Nd:YAG, especially in the fi eld of oral surgery? Very often, we combine these two wavelengths to conduct treatment in a fast, safe and predictable way. For me, it’s crucial to use these two complementary wavelengths— the interaction between the tissue and laser beam is quite different, and owing to these differences in absorption, transmission and scattering, we obtain different actions. For example, during root apicectomy, after fl ap elevation, I remove granulation soft tissue with the Er:YAG laser using the H14 handpiece with a cylindrical tip (or when I want to be more precise—a Varian tip) and the apicectomy is done with the H02 non-contact handpiece. As the next step, I conduct deep disinfection with the Nd:YAG laser (trans- mission in hydroxyapatite and absorption in pigmented bacteria) before bone augmentation. Finally, I fi nish the treatment with photo-biomodulation using the Nd:YAG laser. As you can see from this example, I need both of these two complementary wavelengths to achieve fi nal success with fast healing and proper bone regeneration. One of your main fi elds of specialisation is implan- tology. Where does the laser fi t in this fi eld? We can use LightWalker for all implantology cases. Some- times, it’s only needed for better and faster wound healing (photo-biomodulation with the Nd:YAG laser), but very often it is necessary to conduct the treatment. For me, it’s the most important device during immediate implantation with immediate loading, especially when the bone must be very precisely cleaned of granulation soft tissue and disinfected. In the meantime, we can also provoke bleeding of the bone using the Er:YAG laser for superfi cial bone ablation. I also really appreciate the use of laser during bone grafting with the Khoury method. Sometimes, I combine this technique with immediate implantation, especially in the aesthetic zone. Then, after bone shield fi xation, I can use the laser for bone recontouring. With the Er:YAG laser, it’s done very precisely—I remove sharp edges and create an emergence profi le for the crown—and most importantly, everything is safe for the shield (almost no vibration, so we don’t lose stability) and the implant (no thermal effect). Of course, we can also use the Er:YAG laser for more common and “easy” procedures—like implant uncovering (Er:YAG). The healing is faster and we avoid suturing, but of course, even with the thin chisel tip, some amount of soft tissue is vapourised—so it cannot be conducted in all cases. In 2018, you defended your master’s thesis at RWTH Aachen University titled Comparison of Two Methods of Periimplantitis Treatment with the Use of Nd:YAG and Er:YAG Laser. Can you tell us more about that research? Owing to the increasing number of implants being placed, the development of peri-implantitis is a growing concern and one of the primary challenges in present-day dentistry. In cases of infl ammation, it is necessary to implement treatment, or risk implant loss. However, until now, no uniform protocol or procedure has been defi ned which could be considered the best and the most effective solution. Different methods of treatment of tissue infl am- mation around the implant are used, depending on the extent of infl ammation, method availability, type of defect, and skills and experience of the dental surgeon. We know that laser can be used for the treatment of infl ammation in soft and hard tissue around implants, such as mucositis and peri-implantitis. I wanted to inves- tigate what kind of procedure would be the most effective and minimally invasive—so the question was whether we could use a minimally invasive, fl apless procedure for proper treatment and solve the problem of infl ammation. “I really appreciate the deep disinfection with Nd:YAG, which offers the highest bacterial reduction [...]” The procedures were conducted with Er:YAG and Nd:YAG lasers. In the fi rst group of patients, a mucoperiosteal fl ap was elevated in order to gain better access to the operative area, while the second group of patients was treated using a more minimally invasive procedure without the fl ap method. The assessment of treatment effectiveness involved clinical and radiographic examination before the surgical procedures and three months after the laser procedures. After conduct- ing the intra-oral examination and defi ning plaque, probing depth and bleeding on probing indices, photographic doc- umentation of a given area was performed, bitewing and occlusal surface radiographs were taken, and professional scaling and root planing were subsequently carried out. Based on my research, we know that non-surgical treatment of peri-implantitis is effective and very often reduces infl amma- tion. Of course, when we have severe defects, it’s impossible to avoid a surgical procedure to elevate a fl ap to get proper access to the defect. In such cases too, we should use a non- surgical procedure as a fi rst step to decrease the infl ammation and, after two to three weeks, perform the fl ap procedure. Can you describe your standard laser protocol for peri-implantitis treatment? Firstly, we have to distinguish mucositis from peri-implantitis with a radiovisiograph and with the use of a periodontal probe. If possible, I remove the prosthetic restoration to get better access for the treatment. In our surgical protocol, we have fi ve steps: (1) removal of granulation tissue with the use of the Er:YAG laser (cylindrical tip); (2) decontamination m o c . k c o t s r e t t u h S / c e V n a A © l cosmetic 1 2022 dentistry 39