Low-level Laser Therapy Therapy Research Articles

Comparison of the Effectiveness of High Intensity Laser therapy (HILT) and Low-Level Laser Therapy (LLLT) on Functional Improvement in Knee Osteoarthritis Patients

BACKGROUND : Knee osteoarthritis causes sore, joint stilted, progressive deformity and functional encroachment. The current therapeutic focus on rectifying function and assuaging symptoms, especially pain. There are two types of laser therapy, namely Low-Level Laser Therapy (LLLT) and High Intensity Laser Therapy (HILT). High Intensity Laser Therapy (HILT) is a high-intensity laser radiation with photochemical, photothermal, and photomechanical action possess many therapeutic steads including analgesic, anti-edematous, and biostimulating effects. In this study, we compare the effectiveness of HILT with LLLT on functional enhancement in knee osteoarthritis assessed by the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS). AIMS : To compare the effectiveness of HILT with LLLT on functional enhancement in patients with knee osteoarthritis. METHOD : This research is a quasi-experimental pre-test and post-test with controlled group design. There were 27 subjects of knee osteoarthritis patients who were divided into 2 treatment groups, the first treatment group admit HILT therapy (14 patients) and the second treatment group admit LLLT therapy (13 patients). Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) was measured before and after 4 weeks of treatment. RESULT : There was a significant difference in the mean value of functional improvement as measured by KOOS before and after treatment in each group (p < 0.001) and there was a significant difference in the mean value of KOOS in the two groups (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION : The administration of HILT has shown significant escalation of functional improvement compared to the administration of LLLT in patients with knee osteoarthritis.

Comparing the effects of low-level laser therapy and gaseous ozone as a preventive measure on medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaws following tooth extraction: a rat model

ObjectivesUse of numerous medications such as tyrosine kinase inhibitors (sunitinib), monoclonal antibodies (bevacizumab), fusion proteins (aflibercept), mTOR inhibitors (everolimus), radiopharmaceuticals (radium 223), selective estrogen receptor modulators (raloxifene), and immunosuppressants (methotrexate and corticosteroids) has been reported to be a risk factor for development of medication-related osteonecrosis of the jaws till date. This study aimed to evaluate the preventive effect of low-level laser therapy (LLLT) and gaseous ozone on the onset of MRONJ following tooth extraction.Materials and methodsA total of 40 male Wistar rats were randomly allocated into 4 groups of 10 rats each. The groups laser (L), ozone (O), and control (C) received weekly intraperitoneal injections of zoledronic acid (0.06 mg/kg), while group sham (S) received saline solution for 4 weeks. After the 4th injection, all subjects underwent mandibular first molar extraction and adjunctive laser or ozone was applied according to the groups. All the rats were sacrificed at 4 postoperative weeks for comparative histomorphometric evaluation of bone healing in extraction sites.ResultsLaser and ozone groups demonstrated significantly higher bone formation compared to control group (p < 0.05), while no significant difference was found between laser and ozone groups (p = 1.00). Furthermore, the greatest bone formation was observed with the sham group (p < 0.05).ConclusionsFindings of the current study support that adjunctive LLLT and ozone therapy following tooth extraction may help prevent MRONJ and improve bone healing in subjects under zoledronic acid therapy.Clinical relevanceSince the introduction in 2003, great effort has been devoted to developing a certain management protocol for MRONJ. Several publications have appeared in recent years documenting promising results of adjunctive LLLT and ozone application in treatment of MRONJ. However, experimental data are limited on this regard and the present study, for the first time, aimed to evaluate and compare the effects of LLLT and ozone in prevention of MRONJ.

Comparison Of The Effectiveness Of High Intensity Laser Therapy (HILT) And Low-Level Laser Therapy (LLLT) On Improving Balance In Knee Osteoarthritis

BACKGROUND : Osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee is a joint disease with a high prevalence among the elderly. OA can cause balance disorders, which are one of the main causes of falls in the elderly. Balance can be measured using several scoring systems, one of which is the Berg Balance Scale (BBS). One of the treatment modalities for OA is laser therapy which is non-invasive and easy to apply. Low level laser therapy (LLLT) has been widely used in patients with knee OA, but recently high intensity laser therapy (HILT) has begun to be used in physical therapy with advantages over a wider range and depth. AIMS : to compare the effect of LLLT and HILT therapy on improving functional balance in the elderly with knee OA. METHOD : This research is a randomized controlled trial pre-test and post-test-controlled group design. The sampling method used in this study is the simple random sampling method. The sample size was 27 subjects and divided into two groups, the LLLT group (n=14) and the HILT group (n=13). Each subject received laser therapy sessions 2 times a week for 4 weeks. Balance was assessed using the BBS before and after the intervention. RESULT : There was an increase in BBS scores before and after treatment in the HILT group (p&lt;0.001) and in the LLLT group (p&lt;0.001), with the increase in the HILT group (7.79 ± 2.16) significantly greater than in the LLLT group (3 .08 ± 0.76) (p&lt;0.001). CONCLUSION : HILT improves balance score better than LLLT.

Effects of Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation, Laser Therapy, and Ultrasound in Managing Temporomandibular Disorders: A Randomised Clinical Study

Introduction: Temporomandibular Joint Disorders (TMDs) are considered multifactorial, and several treatment approaches have been proposed for their effective management. The use of non invasive treatment modalities is recommended, which includes Transcutaneous Electric Nerve Stimulation (TENS), Low-Level Laser Therapy (LLLT), acupuncture, ultrasound, and manual therapies. Aim: To evaluate the effectiveness of TENS, LLLT, and ultrasound therapy in patients suffering from TMDs. Materials and Methods: This prospective, randomised clinical trial was conducted on thirty patients (11 males, 19 females) clinically diagnosed with TMD associated with Temporomandibular Joint (TMJ) pain, clicking joint sound, pain in the muscles of mastication, and limited mouth opening. Patients were sequentially randomised into three groups to be treated with TENS, laser beam, and ultrasound therapies, respectively. The Visual Analog Scale (VAS) Score and painfree mouth opening were recorded before, during, and after treatment. Data were analysed using Statistical Package for Social Sciences(SPSS) version 16.0 statistical software. Statistical tests such as the paired sample t-test, Analysis of Variance (ANOVA), and post-hoc Tukey test were performed. Results: There was a significant reduction in the VAS score in the TENS group (3.15), LLLT group (5.75), and ultrasound group (5.50) post-treatment (p&lt;0.001). In addition, improvements in Mean Mouth Opening (MMO) levels were observed with TENS (7.80 mm), LLLT (9.09 mm), and ultrasound therapy (7.15 mm). These differences were found to be statistically significant (p&lt;0.05). The laser and ultrasound groups fared better than the TENS group in the reduction of VAS scores (p&lt;0.05), and there was no significant difference in MMO among the three therapies. Conclusion: Reductions in VAS scores and improvements in mouth opening were noticed in all three groups post-treatment. The laser and ultrasound therapies were more effective in reducing pain compared to TENS therapy. Comparing pretreatment and mid-treatment values, laser beam therapy proved to be more effective in reducing pain scores compared to TENS and ultrasound therapy.

Comparative evaluation of low-level laser therapy and multi-wave locked system laser therapy for carpal tunnel syndrome: a retrospective study

Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate the effects of Low-Level Laser Therapy (LLLT) and Multi-Wave Locked System (MLS) Laser Therapy on clinical and functional parameters in Carpal Tunnel Syndrome.&#x0D; Methods: In the study, 60 patients with mild-moderate carpal tunnel syndrome were evaluated retrospectively in 3 groups. Group I; LLLT, Group II; MLS Laser therapy, Group III; It consisted of patients who did not receive any laser application and were given splints, a home exercise program and patient education. Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), Hand Grip Strength measurement and BOSTON Carpal Tunnel Questionnaire measurements were evaluated from the patients' files at baseline, 4th week and 12th week.&#x0D; Results: Statistically significant improvements were observed in all parameters in Group I and Group II at 4 weeks and 12 weeks compared to baseline. Group III showed no significant differences in grip strength measurements and the BOSTON Functional Status Scale at 4 weeks compared to baseline. The changes between baseline and 4 weeks were statistically significantly better in Group I and Group II compared to Group III for all parameters. No significant difference was found between Group I and Group II in VAS and grip strength improvements, but the improvement in Boston Symptom Severity Scale was significantly more prominent in Group II than in Group I.&#x0D; Conclusion: Both LLLT and MLS Laser Therapy can be considered as conservative treatment options along with splinting and exercise to control the symptoms of Carpal Tunnel Syndrome. MLS Laser Therapy may be superior to LLLT in reducing symptom severity.

The efficacy of combining low-level laser therapy with oral motor exercises in patients with temporomandibular disorders (pilot study)

Background: The term temporomandibular disorders (TMDs) is used for clinical signs and symptoms affecting the masticatory muscles, temporomandibular joints (TMJs) and associated structures or both. TMDs may present clinically with facial pain in the region of the TMJs and/or muscles of mastication, limitation in mouth opening, and TMJ clicking during mastication. Treatment of TMDs includes occlusal splints, drug therapy, physiotherapy, auriculotherapy and low-level laser therapy (LLLT). Methods: Ten patients with TMD were recruited from the Oral Medicine clinics at Prince Sultan Military Medical City. The participants were randomly allocated into two equal groups. All participants attended a total of eight laser treatment sessions using a 940 nm diode laser. The deep-tissue laser hand-piece was applied perpendicular to the Temporalis muscle, Masseter muscle and TMJ region bilaterally. Patients in the second group attended physiotherapy sessions in addition to the laser sessions. Participants were evaluated for range of mandibular movement, pain, and tenderness to palpation before treatment, one-week post-treatment, and thirty days after treatment completion. Results: This study, being a pilot study, was conducted in a comparatively small number of patients. It allowed for the assessment of research feasibility, methodology, limitations, and preliminary outcomes. Moreover, variations in the response to treatment were observed between the two groups, with results of this study supporting previous findings that LLLT is an effective treatment for TMD symptoms, tenderness to palpation, as well as improving jaw functional behavior. Conclusions: Therefore, LLLT therapy may be a promising tool for the management of TMD, especially when combined with physiotherapy.

Low-level laser therapy versus ultrasound therapy combined with home-based exercise in patients with subacromial impingement syndrome: A randomized-controlled trial.

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of low-level laser therapy (LLLT) and therapeutic ultrasound (US) combined with home-based exercise (HBE) versus HBE alone in patients with subacromial impingement syndrome (SAIS). Between March 2021 and July 2021, a total of 60 patients with SAIS (19 males, 41 females; mean age: 51.3±10.4 years; range, 30 to 70 years) were included. The patients were randomly allocated to an LLLT group (LG), an US therapy group (UG), and a control group (CG). The LLLT and US therapy programs were applied five times a week, for a total of 15 sessions. Home-based exercise programs and cold-pack therapy were administered to patients in each group. The patients were evaluated at baseline and one and three months of follow-up using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) for pain during activity, at rest, and at night, and the Shoulder Pain and Disability Index (SPADI). All groups showed a significant improvement in the VAS and SPADI scores after the first month (p<0.05). The VAS activity pain score (p=0.008), SPADI pain score (p=0.003), SPADI disability score (p=0.012), and SPADI total score (p=0.003) significantly decreased in the LG compared to the CG at one month of follow-up. However, there were no significant differences in the outcome measures among the three groups at three months (p>0.05). The LLLT combined with HBE is more effective than HBE program alone for relieving activity pain and improving shoulder functions in the short term. However, LLLT and US therapy do not provide additional effects in terms of pain and disability at three months.

Effects of Low-Level Laser Therapy on Orthodontic Tooth Movement: Evaluation of Bony Changes via 3DCBCT.

The prime objective of this research was to study the effect of low-level laser therapy (LLLT) with an evaluation of bony changes via pre- and post-treatment 3DCBCT in orthodontic malocclusion cases treated with fixed orthodontic appliances. Subjects who attended the Orthodontic Clinic, were diagnosed with orthodontic malocclusion, treated with fixed orthodontic appliances, and had pre- and post-management CBCT were included in the study. Patients aged 14 to 25 years who met the inclusion criteria were assigned to two groups, group A (LLLT) and group B (non-LLLT). Group A participants were treated with LLLT therapy as per standard protocol after explaining the nature of the treatment. Group B (non-LLLT) participants were not treated with LLLT therapy and therefore served as the control. LLLT was used in the experimental group after placing each archwire. Interradicular bony changes at depth levels of 1 to 4 (2, 5, 8, and 11 mm) using 3DCBCT were measured as outcome parameters. The information collected was analyzed using SPSS computer software. Mostly insignificant differences were noted among groups for the different parameters (p < 0.05). Student's t-tests and paired t-tests were used to investigate the differences. Experimental Hypothesis: There will be significant differences in the interradicular width (IRW) measurements between the LLLT and non-LLLT groups. The hypothesis was rejected. Upon investigation of prospective changes, most of the measured parameters showed insignificant differences.

Efficacy of Low-Level Laser Therapy in Androgenetic Alopecia - A Randomized Controlled Trial.

Androgenetic alopecia (AGA) is caused by the susceptibility of hair follicles to androgenic miniaturization, which leads to hair loss. The most common modalities for the treatment of AGA include the use of topical minoxidil and oral finasteride. Low-level laser therapy (LLLT) is a newer modality of treatment for AGA. We tried to evaluate the added benefit of LLLT in AGA compared with topical minoxidil 5% alone. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of LLLT combined with topical 5% minoxidil in AGA versus topical 5% minoxidil used alone. After ethics committee approval, 54 patients of AGA were randomly divided into two groups. Group A participants received LLLT therapy twice a week plus topical 5% minoxidil and Group B participants received only minoxidil 5% solution. Both the groups were followed up for 16 weeks and evaluated with gross photographs, TrichoScan analysis, and dermoscopy to look for any improvement in hair density. After 16 weeks, improvement in hair density of 14.78% ± 10.93% in Group A was recorded compared to 11.43% ± 6.43% in Group B. However, while comparing both means, P value was 0.45 which was not significant. The physician global assessment and patient satisfaction score revealed no significant difference between both the groups. Although LLLT appears to be safe and effective in the treatment of male pattern hair loss, we did not observe any significant difference in terms of improvement in hair density between both the groups.

Low-Level Laser and Light Therapy After Total Knee Arthroplasty Improves Postoperative Pain and Functional Outcomes: A Three-Arm Randomized Clinical Trial

BackgroundWe examined the effect of low-level laser therapy (LLLT) and Bioptron light therapy on pain and function following primary total knee arthroplasty. MethodsA single-center, single-surgeon, prospective randomized clinical trial was performed with 3 groups of 15 patients: LLLT (804 nm), light (Bioptron; Bioptron AG, Wollerau, Switzerland), and controls. Range of motion (ROM), visual analog scale pain, opiate consumption (oxycodone in milligrams), knee swelling, and the Knee Society Score (KSS) were assessed before the surgery and on postoperative day 2, postoperative day 3, month 3, and month 12 after the operation. ResultsThe preoperative scores were similar between groups. A higher ROM was observed with the LLLT group at all follow-ups except at the 12-month follow-up (3-month ROM: 116.8° vs 104.0° vs 92.3°; P < .001). The knee swelling at 3 months was similar between the LLLT and light groups (2.1 cm), which was lower than that in controls (2.1 cm, P < .001). Furthermore, visual analog scale pain decreased more in the LLLT group than in other groups (8.5 vs 7.2 vs 6.0 points) at 3 months (P = .04) but was similar at 12 months (P > .05). Also, the LLLT group consumed fewer opiate painkillers during the first month (48.3 vs 60.3 mg of oxycodone, P = .02). In the LLLT group, the KSS at 3 and 12 months and the KSS function score at 3 months exceeded minimally clinically important differences (P < .05). ConclusionsIn the early stages of recovery after total knee arthroplasty, LLLT and Bioptron light therapy could be helpful to control immediate and acute knee pain and swelling, reduce the need for opioids, improve ROM and functional scores, and improve recovery. Level of EvidenceTherapeutic level I.

Short- and Long-Term Effectiveness of Low-Level Laser Therapy Combined with Strength Training in Knee Osteoarthritis: A Randomized Placebo-Controlled Trial.

Background: Both physical activity and low-level laser therapy (LLLT) can reduce knee osteoarthritis (KOA) inflammation. We conducted a randomized clinical trial to investigate the short- and long-term effectiveness of LLLT combined with strength training in persons with KOA. Methods: Fifty participants were randomly divided in two groups, one with LLLT plus strength training (n = 26) and one with placebo LLLT plus strength training (n = 24). LLLT and strength training were performed triweekly for 3 and 8 weeks, respectively. In the laser group, 3 joules 904 nm wavelength laser was applied to fifteen points (45 joules) per knee per session. Patient-reported outcomes, physical tests, and ultrasonography assessments were performed at baseline and 3, 8, 26, and 52 weeks after initial LLLT or placebo therapy. The primary outcomes were pain on movement, at rest, at night (Visual Analogue Scale), and globally (Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) subscale). Parametric data were assessed with analysis of variance using Šidák’s correction. Results: There were no significant between-group differences in the primary outcomes. However, in the laser group there was a significantly reduced number of participants using analgesic and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and increased performance in the sit-to-stand test versus placebo-control at week 52. The joint line pain pressure threshold (PPT) improved more in the placebo group than in the laser group, but only significantly at week 8. No other significant treatment effects were present. However, pain on movement and joint line PPT were worse in the placebo group at baseline, and therefore, it had more room for improvement. The short-term percentage of improvement in the placebo group was much higher than in similar trials. Conclusions: Pain was reduced substantially in both groups. LLLT seemed to provide a positive add-on effect in the follow-up period in terms of reduced pain medication usage and increased performance in the sit-to-stand test.

Effectiveness of Low-Level Laser Therapy in Patients with Discogenic Lumbar Radiculopathy: A Double-Blind Randomized Controlled Trial

Purpose To determine the effectiveness of low-level laser therapy (LLLT) in patients with discogenic lumbar radiculopathy and correlation among pain intensity, functional disability, and lumbar range of motion (LROM). Study Design/Setting. A double-blind RCT was conducted at physical therapy departments of different hospitals of Islamabad, Pakistan. The study period was March 2020 to August 2021. Patient Sample. The study comprised 110 patients with acute LBP and unilateral discogenic lumbar radiculopathy. Outcome Measures. The outcomes of the treatment were measured on the first day and then after 18 sessions from each patient's pain intensity, functional disability, L-ROM, and straight leg raise by using visual analogue scale, Oswestry disability index, dual inclinometer, and straight leg raise test. Methods A total of 110 participants with a mean age of 38 ± 7.4 years were randomly assigned into two groups of 55 each. The experimental group of 55 patients was treated with LLLT and conventional physical therapy. The control group of 55 patients was treated with conventional physical therapy alone. Both groups had received 18 treatment sessions. The data were analyzed through SPSS-21.0. Results The results of the Wilcoxon signed-rank test score as well as Mann–Whitney U test indicated a statistically significant difference in values (p < 0.05 in all instances) within the groups and between the groups, respectively. Conclusions The LLLT is proved as an efficient adjunct therapy to conventional physical therapy for discogenic lumbar radiculopathy.

Evaluation of Efficacy of Three Treatment Modalities in the Management of Symptomatic Oral Lichen Planus—A Prospective Comparative Study

Context: Oral lichen planus (OLP) is a relatively common chronic inflammatory condition of the oral mucosa. OLP is currently managed by various treatment protocols, the most common being topical and systemic corticosteroid therapy. Low-level laser therapy (LLLT), or photo-biomodulation, is gaining popularity as a palliative treatment for OLP. Aim: The present study was aimed to compare the efficacy of LLLT, topical corticosteroid therapy, or a combination of both in the management of OLP. Settings and Design: Thirty patients who were clinically and histopathologically diagnosed as OLP were randomly selected and divided into three groups: Group 1 (n = 10) received topical corticosteroid therapy (TCT); Group 2 (n = 10) received LLLT; and Group 3 (n = 10) received combination of both the therapies. Materials and Method: Each group of patients received treatment in five sessions of their respective therapy over the course of 15 days, with a three-day interval between each follow-up. The VAS (visual analogue scale) was used to collect data on pain. The percentage of healing was calculated using the WHO oral mucositis assessment scale, the global healing index, and the WU et al. (2010) disease grading system. Results: A reduction in scores in VAS, WHO oral mucositis assessment scale, global healing index, and WU et al. (2010) disease scoring system with the combination of LLLT and topical corticosteroid therapy was observed. Conclusion: Both LLLT and TCT were effective against the symptom control and improvement in clinical manifestation of oral lichen planus, nevertheless; a combination of the two was found to be more beneficial in treatment of symptomatic OLP.

Effect of Low-Level Laser Therapy and Sinensetin (Combination therapy) on Tumor Cells (Hela) and Normal Cells (CHO).

Introduction: Cervical and ovarian cancers are well-known causes of death among women in developing countries. There are various technologies to treat cancer cells, but the polyphenolic compound is a natural one and has an anti-cancer effect. Sinensetin is one of them and is found in Orthosiphon stamineus and citrus fruits. Since combination therapy is more effective than drug treatment alone, in this study, we investigated combination therapy using sinensetin and low-level laser therapy (LLLT) to enhance treatment. Methods: The cancer cells purchased from Pasteur Institute, Iran, were cultured. The cells were treated with various concentrations of sinensetin (0.1-1-10-50,150 µg/mL for 24 hours), wavelengths of laser therapy (660 nm) and power density (3 J/cm2) for different times)30, 60, and 90 seconds) separately. Furthermore, sensitivity of cells to sinensetin, LLLT and combined therapy was determined by clonogenic assays. To measure DNA damage and repair at individual cell level used comet assay. To examine the intracellular generation of reactive oxygen species used 2',7'-dichlorodihydrofluorescein (DCFH) as an intracellular probe. To analyze data we used SPSS software and comparison between groups was used (ANOVA) and t test statistical analyses were performed using SPSS 17 software. Data are presented as means - standard error of mean. The level of statistical significance was set at a two-tailed P value of 0.05. All tests were performed in triplicate. Results: Our results demonstrated that the doubling time for CHO is more than Hella cells, with 20.7 and 27.7 h for each cell respectively. The pretreatments (first LLLT, then sinensetin) can decrease the viability of both cell lines more than the first treatment (sinensetin + LLLT). In the clonogenic assay, the pretreatment of cells with LLLT and Sinensetin significantly reduced the surviving fraction of both cell lines. MTT results showed that pretreatment with LLLT and Sinensetin can increase cell death compared to Sinensetin and LLLT alone. Production of ROS within the cell was enhanced with LLLT + sinensetin. Conclusion: Our result indicated that combined therapy with LLLT and Sinensetin can treat CHO and Hela cells better than the other groups. Combination treatment with sinensetin-LLLT and the other treatment means, sinensetin and LLLT alone, did not change the cell viability significantly.

Ultrasonographic and electrophysiological outcomes of carpal tunnel syndrome treated with low-level laser therapy: A double-blind, prospective, randomized, sham-controlled study.

Objectives The aim of this study was to investigate the therapeutic effects of low-level laser therapy (LLLT) on clinical, ultrasonographic (US), and electrophysiological findings in carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS).Patients and methods Between January 2015 and August 2015, 42 patients (7 males, 35 females; mean age: 50.4±8.7 years; range, 32 to 65 years) with mild-to-moderate CTS were randomly assigned to one of two groups: active LLLT (therapy group, n=22) 0.8 J/painful point and sham LLLT groups (n=20). Both groups wore neutral wrist orthoses. The patients were evaluated before and after 15 sessions of therapy (670 nm, 4 J/session over the carpal tunnel). Follow-up parameters included the Boston Carpal Tunnel Syndrome Questionnaire (BCTQ) Symptom Severity Scale (SSS), Functional Status Scale (FSS), nerve conduction studies and US evaluation of the median nerve cross-sectional area (CSA), vascularization (via power Doppler), flattening ratio (FR), and palmar bowing of the flexor retinaculum.Results Nocturnal paresthesia improved in both groups; however, pain and patients with a positive Phalen’s test reduced only in the therapy group (p=0.031). The FSS and SSS scores also improved only in the therapy group (p<0.001). Electrophysiologically, median sensory nerve conduction velocities showed a significant improvement only in the therapy group (p=0.002). The CSA, FR, and vascularization of the median nerve showed a significant improvement in the therapy group alone (p<0.001, p=0.048, and p=0.021, respectively).Conclusion Improvements in the signs and symptoms of CTS and hand function, the improvements in sensory nerve conduction studies, and reduction in median nerve CSA, FR and vascularity in the LLLT group can be attributed to the anti-inflammatory and analgesic effects of LLLT. This study provides new US data demonstrating efficacy of LLLT along with a clinical and electrophysiological improvement. The LLLT seems to be an easily applied, non-invasive treatment option.

Low level Laser Therapy versus Ultrasonic therapy for the Treatment of Shoulder Impingement Syndrome A Systematic Review of randomized controlled trials

Abstract Background Shoulder impingement syndrome is a common cause of shoulder pain in primary health care settings. Many physical modalities of treatment are available in clinical practice, however there is insufficient evidence on their relative effectiveness. This review compares the effectiveness of Low Level Laser Therapy (LLLT) with ultrasonic therapy. Objectives To assess the effectiveness of LLLT vs. ultrasonic therapy in patients with subacromial impingement syndrome Search methods We searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) on the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (Pubmed), Embase, Scopus. We searched trials registries on ClinicalTrials.gov (www.ClinicalTrials.gov) and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) Search Portal (apps.who.int/trialsearch/). We also hand-searched reference lists of all included primary studies, relevant conference proceedings and academic literature, and relevant systematic reviews (both Cochrane and non Cochrane), to identify additional studies missed from the original electronic searches (e.g., unpublished or in press citations). We did not use date or language restrictions. Selection criteria Randomized controlled trials comparing LLLT vs. US therapy in adult patients with subacromial impingement syndrome. Data collection Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information. We collected our primary outcomes information from the trials and assessed the quality of evidence for key outcomes using GRADE. Results We included 2 RCTs, contributing 67 participants to our qualitative synthesis. The overall risk of bias is high for both studies. Very low-quality evidence from 1 RCT shows slightly increased mean change in pain severity after LLLT compared to ultrasonic therapy in the short term (3 months) (MD 4.69, 95% CI -5.76 to -3.62).[13]. Very low-quality evidence from 1 RCT shows little to no difference in functional improvement after LLLT compared to ultrasonic therapy in the short term (after 3 months) (MD -0.63, 95% CI -5.53 to 4.27) [13]. No studies investigated Range of Motion in the short term. Verylow certainty evidence showed little to no difference in pain severity and function in the immediate post-treatment phase (up to 1 month). No studies addressed long term follow-up. conclusion There is insufficient evidence regarding the difference in effects between LLLT and Ultrasonic therapy for the treatment of shoulder impingement syndrome.

Comparison of Efficacy of Combination Therapy (Low Level Laser Therapy (LLLT) and Topical Steroid) with Topical Steroid Therapy only in Patients with Symptomatic Oral Lichen Planus – In vivo Study

Aim: To compare the efficacy of combination therapy (low level laser therapy [LLLT] and topical steroids) with topical steroid therapy alone in individuals with symptomatic oral lichen planus. Materials and Methods: The study was conducted on 30 patients who reported to our department with clinically and histologically proven symptomatic oral lichen planus (OLP). All the patients were assessed for the criteria of outcome—pain, burning sensation, size of the lesion, clinical resolution, and recurrence. The patients were randomly assigned into two groups each comprising of 15 patients. Group I (study group) patients received a combination of topical steroid and LLLT while Group II (control group) patients received only topical steroid therapy. Results: A significant pain and burning sensation reduction were found in the patients who were given LLLT (P: 0.05). There was a decrease in the size of the lesion which was statistically significant. A complete clinical resolution was achieved and only 11% recurrence occurred in the study group. This therapy appears to be effective in patients with symptomatic OLP. Conclusion: The LLLT therapy appears to be useful in relieving pain and burning sensation, reduction in the size of the lesion, with complete clinical resolution and minimal recurrence, and hence, can be considered as a valuable aid in managing symptomatic OLP. Thus, the LLLT therapy serves as a potent and independent therapeutic modality in symptomatic OLP.

Is low-level laser therapy useful as an adjunctive treatment for canine acral lick dermatitis? A randomized, double-blinded, sham-controlled study.

Conventional therapy for canine acral lick dermatitis (ALD) consists of systemic antibiotics and anti-anxiety medications. Low-level laser therapy (LLLT) is a noninvasive therapy used to treat inflammatory and painful conditions. The primary objective was to determine whether LLLT with conventional therapy would be beneficial as an adjunct treatment for ALD. We hypothesized that LLLT and conventional therapy combined would result in a greater reduction in licking Visual Analog Score (LVAS) compared to conventional therapy alone. Secondary objectives were to assess change in lesion/ulcer size, thickness and hair growth. Thirteen dogs with a skin lesion consistent with ALD. Dogs were randomly assigned to two groups. All dogs received systemic antibiotics and trazodone. The treatment group (TG) received LLLT by laser (130mW, 2min) with blue and red light-emitting diodes (LEDs), while the control group (CG) had sham therapy (laser/LEDs off). Treatments were administered three times weekly for two weeks, then twice weekly for two weeks for a total of 10 visits. Descriptive statistics were performed (mean, median); primary and secondary objectives were assessed with nonparametric ANOVA (Kruskal-Wallis test), with significance set at P<0.05. Thirteen dogs (six CG, seven TG) were enrolled. There were no significant differences in median LVAS, lesion/ulcer size or thickness of the ALD lesion between TG and CG. There was a significantly greater increase (24%) in hair growth in TG (P=0.0081) compared to CG. Treatment of ALD requires multimodal therapy. Although combining LLLT with conventional therapy did not result in a significantly greater reduction in LVAS, there was a significant increase in hair growth compared to conventional therapy alone.

Treatment of facial nerve palsies with laser and endermotherapy: a report of two cases

Facial nerve palsy involves paralysis of unknown origin caused by trauma, infectious disease or metabolic disorders. The aim of this study was to employ low-level laser therapy (LLLT) in the recovery of two patients with facial nerve palsies due to trauma and Bell’s palsy (BP), respectively. LLLT was used with a gallium aluminum arsenide laser (780 nm) in the first case and in the second case LLLT (660 nm and 808 nm) was used synergistically with a vacuum therapy device. No medication was administered during laser treatment and vacuum therapy. The treatments resulted in complete recovery and normal facial expression in both patients including improved facial movement and facial symmetry at rest. With this result in mind, we believe LLLT and combined vacuum therapy may be an alternative treatment to decrease the recovery time of facial expression in normal patients with facial nerve palsies and BP.

Repair strength and surface topography of lithium disilicate and hybrid resin ceramics with LLLT and photodynamic therapy in comparison to hydrofluoric acid.

The aim was to compare the repair bond strength and surface topography of lithium disilicate ceramics (LDC) and hybrid resin ceramics (HRC) using different surface conditioning treatments [low level laser therapy (LLLT), photodynamic therapy (PDT), hydrofluoric acid (HF) with silane and air abrasion (AA) and silane]. Sixty specimens each of LDC and HRC were used. Discs were prepared for each group (6 × 2 mm), conditioned using different regimes. Specimens in group 1 and 5 were laser irradiated using Er,Cr:YSGG (ECYL), group 2 and 6 were conditioned using methylene blue photosensitizer (PDT), group 3 and 7 surface was treated with hydrofluoric acid and silane (HFA-S), group 4 and 8 conditioned with Al2O3 air abrasion and silane (AA-S). A Porcelain Repair Kit was used according to manufacturer recommendation in all samples. Peak universal bond adhesive was rubbed on ceramic surface and then bonded with composite resin. For shear bond strength testing the specimens were placed in a universal testing machine. A stereomicroscope at 40x magnification was used to analyse failure pattern. Five specimens in each group after surface treatment were evaluated for surface changes and topography using scanning electron microscopy. The mean repair bond strength was calculated using ANOVA and Tukey's post hoc test at a significance level of (p < 0.05). The highest repair bond strength was observed in group 3 (LDC) (20.57 ± 3.58 MPa) (HFA-S), whereas, the lowest score was displayed in Group 2 (LDC) using methylene blue photosensitizer (MBPS) (12.18 ± 1.08 MPa). Similarly, in HRC the highest repair SBS was presented in group 8 (AA-S) (20.52 ± 2.51 MPa) and the lowest SBS values were exhibited by PDT treated group 6 (13.22 ± 0.62 MPa). A combination of mechanical and chemical surface treatments should be used in order to achieve adequate repair bond strength between resin composites and ceramic interface of LDC and HRC.