Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
the objective of the present work is to assess the efficacy of photobiomodulation (PBM) with respect to pain, inflammation, and healing after tooth extractions as compared with a sham treatment
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Label | Type | Description | Intervention Names |
|---|---|---|---|
| Group I (Experimental): | Experimental | patients subjected to a tooth extraction and immediately given an intraoral PBM session with an EPIC X Biolase diode laser (BIOLASE, Inc. USA), . It was applied at three points in the area: buccal, pala-tal/lingual, and occlusal to stimulate the tissue |
|
| Group Sham | Sham Comparator | patients undergoing tooth extraction and the application of inactive/simulated PBM im-mediately after using the same procedure |
|
| Name | Type | Description | Arm Group Labels | Other Names |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| laser | Device | patients subjected to a tooth extraction and immediately given an intraoral PBM session with an EPIC X Biolase diode laser (BIOLASE, Inc. USA), with a voltage of 100-240 V, 1.5 A, a power of 0.5 W, and an application of an energy of 15J per cm², for 10-30 seconds at 1 mm of the tissue with an sterile surgical tip. It was applied at three points in the area: buccal, pala-tal/lingual, and occlusal to stimulate the tissue. |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Pain Intensity (Self-Reported Visual Analog Scale - VAS, 0-10) | hange in self-reported pain scores from Day 0 to Day 7 using a 0-10 Visual Analog Scale (VAS), where 0 = no pain and 10 = worst imaginable pain. | Self-reported Pain Scores Using 0m Visual Analog Scale 10 Pain Score.Total pain improvement over day 0 to day 7 |
Not provided
Not provided
Inclusion criteria: adult patients who needed tooth extractions for any reason and who signed an informed consent form
Exclusion Criteria:patients who according to the ASA preoperative evaluation, did not meet the medical con-ditions for a surgical intervention. Immunocompromised patients. Patients with decom-pensated systemic diseases; undergoing chemotherapy treatment or taking immunosup-pressants. Pregnant women. Patients with severe mental disorders. Patients who had re-ceived head and neck radiotherapy
-
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Facility | Status | City | State | ZIP | Country | Contacts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lopez-Jornet Pia | Mur | Spain | 30008 | Spain |
| PubMed Identifier | Type | Citation | Retractions |
|---|---|---|---|
| 32802287 | Background | Ahrari F, Eshghpour M, Zare R, Ebrahimi S, Fallahrastegar A, Khaki H. Effectiveness of Low-Level Laser Irradiation in Reducing Pain and Accelerating Socket Healing After Undisturbed Tooth Extraction. J Lasers Med Sci. 2020 Summer;11(3):274-279. doi: 10.34172/jlms.2020.46. Epub 2020 Jun 21. | |
| 38821660 | Background |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D007834 | Lasers |
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D055096 | Optical Devices |
| D004864 | Equipment and Supplies |
| D055618 | Radiation Equipment and Supplies |
Not provided
Not provided
Group I (Experimental): patients subjected to a tooth extraction and immediately given an intraoral PBM session with an EPIC X Biolase diode laser (BIOLASE, Inc. USA), with a voltage of 100-240 V, 1.5 A, a power of 0.5 W, and an application of an energy of 15J per cm², for 10-30 seconds at 1 mm of the tissue with an sterile surgical tip, based on the opti-mum biostimulation parameters by Cronshaw et al. . It was applied at three points in the area: buccal, palatal/lingual, and occlusal to stimulate the tissue. Group II (Sham): pa-tients undergoing tooth extraction and the application of inactive/simulated PBM imme-diately after using the same procedure
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
|
| Camolesi GCV, Silva FFVE, Aulestia-Viera PV, Marichalar-Mendia X, Gandara-Vila P, Perez-Sayans M. IS THE PHOTOBIOMODULATION THERAPY EFFECTIVE IN CONTROLLING POST-SURGICAL SIDE EFFECTS AFTER THE EXTRACTION OF MANDIBULAR THIRD MOLARS? A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS. J Evid Based Dent Pract. 2024 Jun;24(2):101983. doi: 10.1016/j.jebdp.2024.101983. Epub 2024 Feb 28. |