{"title":"低水平激光治疗和病灶内注射治疗OSMF患者的比较评价:一项准随机试验。","authors":"Anwesha Pattnayak, Asutosh Das, Priyanka Rana, Sunil Raghunandanan, Prasanth Panicker, P Manoj Kumar","doi":"10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3703","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>The aim of the present study was to compare the effectiveness of low-level laser therapy and intralesional injection in oral submucous fibrosis (OSMF) patients.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>The present study comprised of 52 grade II OSMF patients aged between 20 and 60 years. A pretreatment assessment was done for each patients. And 52 patients were divided into two groups (26 patients in each group). Group I received intralesional injections, and group II received low-level laser therapy (LLLT). The intralesional injection group received 0.5 mL 1500 I.U. Hyaluronidase with 2 mL dexamethasone biweekly for a month. The LLLT group underwent sessions of 0.1 watt laser only once for 3 cycles, each lasting 1 minute with 5-minute intervals. Evaluation of overall accessibility, burning sensation and mouth opening was done for both the treatment modalities on 0, 3rd, 7th and 15th day. All data were recorded and statistically analyzed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>On comparison of burning sensation in intralesional Injection group, at baseline, the mean value was 4.00 ± 0.84 and it reduced to 1.19 ± 0.40 while in LLLT group from 4.15 ± 0.96 at baseline, it reduced to 2.65 ± 0.68 at the end of 15 days, respectively. On comparison of mouth opening in intralesional Injection group, at baseline, the mean value was 21.73 ± 1.56 and it increased to 32.53 ± 0.97 while in LLLT group from 22.70 ± 2.17 at baseline, it increased to 24.50 ± 1.31 at the end of 15 days, respectively. There was a statistically significant difference found between the two groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The present study concluded that intralesional injections are more effective in treating grade II OSMF compared with LLLT.</p><p><strong>Clinical significance: </strong>Several different treatment options are available to treat OSMF, including medical approaches, surgical management, and physiotherapy. One of the important therapeutic modalities is intralesional injection therapy with corticosteroids as they reduce inflammation and immunosuppression while hyaluronidase increases tissue permeability. How to cite this article: Pattnayak A, Das A, Rana P, et al. Comparative Evaluation of Low-level Laser Therapy and Intralesional Injection in OSMF Patients: A Quasi-randomized Trial. J Contemp Dent Pract 2024;25(8):745-750.</p>","PeriodicalId":35792,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice","volume":"25 8","pages":"745-750"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparative Evaluation of Low-level Laser Therapy and Intralesional Injection in OSMF Patients: A Quasi-randomized Trial.\",\"authors\":\"Anwesha Pattnayak, Asutosh Das, Priyanka Rana, Sunil Raghunandanan, Prasanth Panicker, P Manoj Kumar\",\"doi\":\"10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3703\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>The aim of the present study was to compare the effectiveness of low-level laser therapy and intralesional injection in oral submucous fibrosis (OSMF) patients.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>The present study comprised of 52 grade II OSMF patients aged between 20 and 60 years. A pretreatment assessment was done for each patients. And 52 patients were divided into two groups (26 patients in each group). Group I received intralesional injections, and group II received low-level laser therapy (LLLT). The intralesional injection group received 0.5 mL 1500 I.U. Hyaluronidase with 2 mL dexamethasone biweekly for a month. The LLLT group underwent sessions of 0.1 watt laser only once for 3 cycles, each lasting 1 minute with 5-minute intervals. Evaluation of overall accessibility, burning sensation and mouth opening was done for both the treatment modalities on 0, 3rd, 7th and 15th day. All data were recorded and statistically analyzed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>On comparison of burning sensation in intralesional Injection group, at baseline, the mean value was 4.00 ± 0.84 and it reduced to 1.19 ± 0.40 while in LLLT group from 4.15 ± 0.96 at baseline, it reduced to 2.65 ± 0.68 at the end of 15 days, respectively. On comparison of mouth opening in intralesional Injection group, at baseline, the mean value was 21.73 ± 1.56 and it increased to 32.53 ± 0.97 while in LLLT group from 22.70 ± 2.17 at baseline, it increased to 24.50 ± 1.31 at the end of 15 days, respectively. There was a statistically significant difference found between the two groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The present study concluded that intralesional injections are more effective in treating grade II OSMF compared with LLLT.</p><p><strong>Clinical significance: </strong>Several different treatment options are available to treat OSMF, including medical approaches, surgical management, and physiotherapy. One of the important therapeutic modalities is intralesional injection therapy with corticosteroids as they reduce inflammation and immunosuppression while hyaluronidase increases tissue permeability. How to cite this article: Pattnayak A, Das A, Rana P, et al. Comparative Evaluation of Low-level Laser Therapy and Intralesional Injection in OSMF Patients: A Quasi-randomized Trial. J Contemp Dent Pract 2024;25(8):745-750.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":35792,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice\",\"volume\":\"25 8\",\"pages\":\"745-750\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3703\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Dentistry\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10024-3703","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Dentistry","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的:本研究的目的是比较低水平激光治疗和病灶内注射治疗口腔黏膜下纤维化(OSMF)的有效性。材料和方法:本研究纳入52例年龄在20 - 60岁的II级OSMF患者。对每位患者进行预处理评估。将52例患者分为两组(每组26例)。组1行病灶内注射,组2行低水平激光治疗(LLLT)。局部注射组给予透明质酸酶0.5 mL 1500 iu加地塞米松2 mL,每两周给予1个月。LLLT组只接受一次0.1瓦激光治疗,共3个周期,每次持续1分钟,间隔5分钟。在第0、第3、第7、第15天对两种治疗方式的总体可及性、烧灼感和开口进行评估。记录所有数据并进行统计分析。结果:与病灶内注射组比较,烧灼感在基线时均值为4.00±0.84,15 d时均值为1.19±0.40;LLLT组从基线时的4.15±0.96,15 d时均值为2.65±0.68。与病灶内注射组相比,口腔开口平均值在基线时为21.73±1.56,在15 d时增加到32.53±0.97;LLLT组从基线时的22.70±2.17增加到15 d时的24.50±1.31。两组之间的差异有统计学意义。结论:与LLLT相比,病灶内注射治疗II级OSMF更有效。临床意义:有几种不同的治疗方法可用于治疗OSMF,包括医学方法、手术管理和物理治疗。其中一个重要的治疗方式是病灶内注射皮质类固醇治疗,因为它们减少炎症和免疫抑制,同时透明质酸酶增加组织通透性。如何引用本文:Pattnayak A, Das A, Rana P等。低水平激光治疗和病灶内注射治疗OSMF患者的比较评价:一项准随机试验。[J]现代医学学报;2009;25(8):745-750。
Comparative Evaluation of Low-level Laser Therapy and Intralesional Injection in OSMF Patients: A Quasi-randomized Trial.
Aim: The aim of the present study was to compare the effectiveness of low-level laser therapy and intralesional injection in oral submucous fibrosis (OSMF) patients.
Materials and methods: The present study comprised of 52 grade II OSMF patients aged between 20 and 60 years. A pretreatment assessment was done for each patients. And 52 patients were divided into two groups (26 patients in each group). Group I received intralesional injections, and group II received low-level laser therapy (LLLT). The intralesional injection group received 0.5 mL 1500 I.U. Hyaluronidase with 2 mL dexamethasone biweekly for a month. The LLLT group underwent sessions of 0.1 watt laser only once for 3 cycles, each lasting 1 minute with 5-minute intervals. Evaluation of overall accessibility, burning sensation and mouth opening was done for both the treatment modalities on 0, 3rd, 7th and 15th day. All data were recorded and statistically analyzed.
Results: On comparison of burning sensation in intralesional Injection group, at baseline, the mean value was 4.00 ± 0.84 and it reduced to 1.19 ± 0.40 while in LLLT group from 4.15 ± 0.96 at baseline, it reduced to 2.65 ± 0.68 at the end of 15 days, respectively. On comparison of mouth opening in intralesional Injection group, at baseline, the mean value was 21.73 ± 1.56 and it increased to 32.53 ± 0.97 while in LLLT group from 22.70 ± 2.17 at baseline, it increased to 24.50 ± 1.31 at the end of 15 days, respectively. There was a statistically significant difference found between the two groups.
Conclusion: The present study concluded that intralesional injections are more effective in treating grade II OSMF compared with LLLT.
Clinical significance: Several different treatment options are available to treat OSMF, including medical approaches, surgical management, and physiotherapy. One of the important therapeutic modalities is intralesional injection therapy with corticosteroids as they reduce inflammation and immunosuppression while hyaluronidase increases tissue permeability. How to cite this article: Pattnayak A, Das A, Rana P, et al. Comparative Evaluation of Low-level Laser Therapy and Intralesional Injection in OSMF Patients: A Quasi-randomized Trial. J Contemp Dent Pract 2024;25(8):745-750.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice (JCDP), is a peer-reviewed, open access MEDLINE indexed journal. The journal’s full text is available online at http://www.thejcdp.com. The journal allows free access (open access) to its contents. Articles with clinical relevance will be given preference for publication. The Journal publishes original research papers, review articles, rare and novel case reports, and clinical techniques. Manuscripts are invited from all specialties of dentistry i.e., conservative dentistry and endodontics, dentofacial orthopedics and orthodontics, oral medicine and radiology, oral pathology, oral surgery, orodental diseases, pediatric dentistry, implantology, periodontics, clinical aspects of public health dentistry, and prosthodontics.