Additional References

1. Laser Institute of America

The following references are available from the Laser Institute of America:

1. American National Standard for Safe Use of Lasers. ANSI Z136.1-1993. Orlando, Florida: The Laser Institute of America, 1993.
2. American National Standard for the Safe Use of Lasers in Health Care Facilities. ANSI Z136.3-2007. Orlando, Florida: The Laser Institute of America, 1996.
3. Ball K. Lasers: The Perioperative Challenge. (2nd ed.) St. Louis: The C.V. Mosby Company, 1995. ISBN 0-8151-0524-X.
4. Smith JF, ed. Laser Safety Guide. (9th ed.) Orlando, Florida: Laser Institute of America, 1995.
5. U.S. Department of Labor. Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Guidelines for Laser Safety and Hazard Assessment. OSHA Instruction PUB 8-1.7. Washington, D.C., August 5, 1991.

Laser versus scapel: Faster Better:

1. Carruth JAS. Resection of the tongue with the carbon dioxide laser. J Laryngol Otolaryngol 1982;96:529-543.
2. Hall RR, et al. A carbon dioxide surgical laser. Ann Royal Coll Surg Eng 1971; 48:181-188.
3. Fisher SE, et al. A comparative histological study of wound healing following CO2 laser and conventional surgical excision of canine buccal mucosa. Arch Oral Biol 1983; 28(4): 287-291.
4. Luomanen M, et al. Extracellular matrix in healing CO2 laser incision wound. J Oral Pathol 1987; 16:322-321.
5. Kaminer R, et al. Bacteremia following laser and conventional surgery in hamsters. J Oral Maxillofacial Surg 1990; 48(1):45-48.
6. White JM, et al. Use of the pulsed Nd:YAG laser for intraoral soft tissue surgery. Lasers Surg Med 1991; 11(5):455-461.

Laser versus scapel: Slower:

1. Pogrel MA, at al. A comparison of carbon dioxide laser, liquid nitrogen cryosurgery and scapel wounds in healing. Oral Surg Oral Med Oral Pathol 1990;69:269-273.
2. Luomanen M. A comparative study of healing of laser and scapel incision wounds in rat oral mucosa. Scand J Dent Res 1987;95:65-73.
3. Pick RM, et al. Comparative wound healing of the scapel, Nd:YAG laser,and electrosurgery in oral mucosa. Inov Technologie Biologie Med 1990; 11:116-121.

Laser versus scapel: equivalent:

1. Rossman JA. Lasers in periodontics. A position paper by the American Academy of Periodontology. J. Periodontol 2002; 73:1231-1239.
2. Cobb, CM. Lasers in periodontics: a review of the literature. J Periodontol. 2006 Apr;77(4):545-64.

Comparison of laser wavelengths:

Treatment of Peri-implantitis:

1. 1. Kreisler M, et al. Effect of Nd:YAG, Ho:YAG, Er:YAG, CO2 and GaAlAs laser irradiation on surface properties of endosseous dental implants. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants 2002; 17:202-211.
2. Bach G, et al. Coventional versus laser-assisted (diode) therapy of periimplantitis: a five year comparative study. Implant Dent 2000; 9(3):247-251.
3. Kato T, et al. Bacterial efficacy of carbon dioxide laser against bacteria contaminated titanium implant and subsequent cellular adhesion to irradiated area. Lasers Surg Med 1998; 23(5): 290-309.

Soft Tissue surgery:

1. White JM, et al. Nd:YAG and CO2 laser therapy of oral mucosal lesions. J Cin Med Surg 1998; 16(6): 299-304.
2. Romanos G, Nentwig G. Diode laser (980 nm) in oral and maxillofacial surgical procedures: clinical observations based on clinical applications. J Clin Laser Surg Med 1999; 17:193-197.
3. White JM, et al. Laser interaction with dental soft tissues: what do we know from our years of applied scientific research? In: Rechmann P, et al. Lasers in dentistry VIII. Proc SPIE 2002; 4610:39-48.

Periodontal therapy:

1. Aoki A, et al. Lasers in non-surgical periodontal therapy. Periodontology 2000, Vol 36, 2004, 59-97.

Clinical Articles (Coming Soon!)