Bianchi de Moraes Michelle, Gomes de Oliveira Rúbia, Raldi Fernando Vagner, Nascimento Rodrigo Dias, Santamaria Mauro Pedrine, Loureiro Sato Fábio Ricardo
Assistant Professor, Division of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Department of Diagnosis and Surgery, State University of São Paulo (UNESP), College of Dentistry, São José dos Campos, Brazil.
MS Student, Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Area, Department of Diagnosis and Surgery, State University of São Paulo (UNESP), College of Dentistry, São José dos Campos, Brazil.
J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2020 Nov;78(11):1920.e1-1920.e9. doi: 10.1016/j.joms.2020.05.018. Epub 2020 May 19.
Studies have shown that laser therapy is a recommended therapy for improving the postoperative period in patients undergoing extraction of the third molars; however, there is still no definition regarding the best protocol to be used. The aim of this study was to measure and compare periodontal tissue healing using 2 different laser protocols.
A double-blinded, randomized, prospective study with patients submitted to inferior third molar extraction was performed, with the sample divided into 3 groups according to the laser application protocol and followed for 6 months: group I, 10 J/cm; group II, 30 J/cm; and group III, sham. The primary variable was probing depth, and the secondary variables were trismus, facial edema, and pain.
The sample was composed of 57 patients: 19 in group I, 20 in group II, and 18 in group III. Analysis of the variables showed statistically significant differences between both groups that received laser therapy, with values of 1.46 for edema control on the third day and 0.54 on the seventh day in group I (P = .017) and 1.26 and 0.52, respectively, in group II (P = .001) compared with 0.59 and 0.49, respectively, in the sham group (P = .702), as well as a statistically significant difference for the 10-J/cm laser protocol for probing depth, with values of 7.58 mm preoperatively and 9.09 mm after 6 months (P = .013).
The use of the low-intensity laser as adjuvant therapy after third molar extraction was more effective in the group undergoing the 10-J/cm laser protocol for improving periodontal tissue healing and in both laser therapy groups for reducing facial edema.
研究表明,激光治疗是改善第三磨牙拔除术后恢复情况的一种推荐疗法;然而,对于最佳治疗方案仍未明确。本研究的目的是使用两种不同的激光治疗方案来测量和比较牙周组织的愈合情况。
对接受下颌第三磨牙拔除术的患者进行了一项双盲、随机、前瞻性研究,根据激光应用方案将样本分为3组,并随访6个月:第一组,10 J/cm;第二组,30 J/cm;第三组,假手术组。主要变量为探诊深度,次要变量为张口受限、面部水肿和疼痛。
样本包括57例患者:第一组19例,第二组20例,第三组18例。变量分析显示,接受激光治疗的两组之间存在统计学显著差异,第一组第三天水肿控制值为1.46,第七天为0.54(P = 0.017),第二组分别为1.26和0.52(P = 0.001),而假手术组分别为0.59和0.49(P = 0.702);此外,对于10 J/cm激光治疗方案,探诊深度也存在统计学显著差异,术前值为7.58 mm,6个月后为9.09 mm(P = 0.013)。
在第三磨牙拔除术后,低强度激光作为辅助治疗,对于采用10 J/cm激光治疗方案的组,在改善牙周组织愈合方面更有效,对于两个激光治疗组,在减轻面部水肿方面均更有效。