Yolanda Collado Murcia, Pia Lopez-Jornet, Francisco Parra Perez
{"title":"Clinical Study of Biostimulation with Low-Power Diode Laser After Dental Extractions.","authors":"Yolanda Collado Murcia, Pia Lopez-Jornet, Francisco Parra Perez","doi":"10.3390/clinpract15050090","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Introduction:</b> 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. <b>Method:</b> A single-blinded, randomized clinical study conducted in a private dental clinic in Murcia, it included 124 patients who needed a tooth extraction, excluding those with medical conditions that could affect healing (such as non-controlled diabetes, immunosuppression, or hemorrhagic disorders). Group I (Experimental): extraction and PBM session with a diode laser (power: 0.5 W, energy 15 J/cm<sup>2</sup> for 10-30 s at 1 mm from the tissue). Group II (Sham treatment): tooth extraction and application of inactive PBM. <b>Results:</b> Pain and inflammation decreased similarly in both groups over time. Anxiety decreased in both groups without significant differences (<i>p</i> = 0.776; <i>p</i> = 0.246). There was no evidence that the treatment or location of the extraction had an influence on healing. Suturing the socket increased the likelihood of good healing (<i>p</i> = 0.048), while long procedures reduced it (<i>p</i> = 0.040). <b>Conclusions:</b> PBM is a non-invasive and safe therapy. This study did not show significant differences with respect to the sham treatment. More research is needed with a standardized methodology to better assess its efficacy.</p>","PeriodicalId":45306,"journal":{"name":"Clinics and Practice","volume":"15 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12110639/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinics and Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/clinpract15050090","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Introduction: 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. Method: A single-blinded, randomized clinical study conducted in a private dental clinic in Murcia, it included 124 patients who needed a tooth extraction, excluding those with medical conditions that could affect healing (such as non-controlled diabetes, immunosuppression, or hemorrhagic disorders). Group I (Experimental): extraction and PBM session with a diode laser (power: 0.5 W, energy 15 J/cm2 for 10-30 s at 1 mm from the tissue). Group II (Sham treatment): tooth extraction and application of inactive PBM. Results: Pain and inflammation decreased similarly in both groups over time. Anxiety decreased in both groups without significant differences (p = 0.776; p = 0.246). There was no evidence that the treatment or location of the extraction had an influence on healing. Suturing the socket increased the likelihood of good healing (p = 0.048), while long procedures reduced it (p = 0.040). Conclusions: PBM is a non-invasive and safe therapy. This study did not show significant differences with respect to the sham treatment. More research is needed with a standardized methodology to better assess its efficacy.