Objective: The purpose of this study was to review the literatures regarding the treatment outcomes of applying laser to the infected sites in immediate implant placement. The review tended to primarily target a question: does applying high-power laser have any positive effect on infected sites in immediate implant placement? Background: Although immediate placement of dental implants has been referred to as a predictable and successful procedure, it is prone to the presence of infection that interferes with the healing process, and triggers the failure of implants. Materials and methods: A thorough electronic database search was conducted on PubMed/Medline, Embase, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane library in compliance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. Two writers worked separately on screening the eligible studies, assessing whether there was a risk of bias, and extracting the required data. Results: Five out of the 60 studies nominated by the database search matched the inclusion criteria. The studies were carried out on a total of 192 patients with 296 implants in all. Ultimately, the study focused on 245 implants whose infected bed had been already decontaminated and prepared with the help of the high-intensity laser, used either alone or in combination with other approaches before implantation. With only nine failures, the implants inserted in infected and irradiated areas had a 96.3% overall survival rate. Conclusions: Taking the limitations of the review into account, the authors arrived at the conclusion that high-power laser irradiation can be beneficial for immediate implant placement in infected sites.

The objective of this study was to describe the histological artifacts caused by high-power laser use compared to cold scalpel surgery in oral soft tissue lesions. Clinical studies that evaluated and compared histological artifacts resulting from the use of high-power lasers and cold scalpels in oral soft tissue lesions biopsies were retrieved from seven databases and four grey literatures, up to July 2022. The risk of bias was investigated using the ROBINS-I tool. The certainty of the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. Seven studies were eligible for qualitative analysis. Based on the results obtained, those four studies had a low risk of bias, and three studies had an unclear risk of bias. The certainty of the evidence was classified as low. Limited evidence showed that epithelial artifacts such as loss of intraepithelial and subepithelial adhesions, accompanied by pyknotic, fusiform, and/or hyperchromic nuclei, were more common when a high-power laser device was used. Four articles reported that the use of high-power lasers did not interfere with the histopathological diagnosis of oral soft tissue lesions. Due to the heterogeneity of the data, a meta-analysis was not performed. Compared to the use of cold scalpels, histological artifacts, particularly those observed in epithelial tissue, are more common when high-powered lasers are used in oral lesions biopsies. The eligibility criteria and adequate indications of high-power lasers in different oral soft tissue lesion treatments must be respected to avoid tissue artifacts that impair precise histopathological diagnosis.

UNASSIGNED: The aim of this article was to enumerate the differences in immediate and postoperative outcomes for holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) performed with low-power (LP) or high-power (HP) laser settings through a systematic review of comparative studies.
UNASSIGNED: We performed a systematic literature review using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Central Controlled Register of Trials. Potential clinical differences among LP and HP HoLEP were determined using the PICOS (Patient Intervention Comparison Outcome Study type) model, where outcomes were surgical time, operative efficiency, postoperative catheterization time, length of hospital stay, blood transfusion, incontinence rate, maximum urinary flow rate (QMax) and International Prostatic Symptom score (IPSS). Retrospective, prospective nonrandomized, randomized studies, and meeting abstracts were considered.
UNASSIGNED: A total of five studies were included for meta-analysis. No significant differences between LP and HP HoLEP were evidenced in terms of intraoperative variables (surgical time, surgical efficiency); postoperative outcomes (length of stay, length of catheterization); postoperative complications; functional results (IPSS; Qmax). Urinary incontinence rate did not differ between the two groups (OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.362.47, p = 0.91).
UNASSIGNED: The study shows equal outcomes in outcomes from HoLEP performed with LP or HP energy settings. Even if further comparative studies are still needed to increase the level of evidence, those results encourage a further clinical adoption of LP HoLEP.