IADR Abstract Archives
Low-level laser protocol on the prevention of pain, edema, and trismus due to retained lower third molar extractions. A clinical, comparative, randomized, double-blind study
Objectives: The aim of clinical trial (split mouth) was to evaluate a low intensity laser protocol to control pain, edema, and trismus after third molars extraction.
Methods: For this, 13 patients with similarly positioned bilateral third molars were used and each patient served twice as a sample unit. Patients were randomized according to the treatment they would receive, Laser side: single low power laser (810 nm), 6 J (100 mW, 60s / dot); and sham side: laser application simulation. After surgery, patients were followed for three consecutive days to assess 1) Pain, by means of rescue analgesic consumption (NAR), Visual Analog Scale (VAS) in the periods of 0h, 1h, 2h, 3h, 12h , 24h, 48h, 72h and mean time of first analgesic use; 2) Edema, through VAS, and mean obtained from the linear facial measurements obtained between the mandibular angle to the corner of the eye, the tragus to the labial commissure and the tragus to the chin (central portion) in the periods of 0h, 24h, 48h, 72h; 3) Trismus, through the mouth opening average in the periods of 0h, 24h, 48h, 72h.
Results: The VAS results show that the laser better controlled pain at periods of 3 (p = 0.010), 24 (p = 0.002), and 48 hours (p = 0.013). There was no difference between Laser and Sham for NAR (p = 0.329) and for the time required for the first analgesic use (p = 0.462). VAS results for edema show that the laser controlled better at 24 (p = 0.041) and 48 hours (p = 0.013). Mouth opening reduction was smaller in the Sham group in all periods evaluated (p <0.05).
Conclusions: It is concluded that the laser protocol used in this research allowed pain and edema reduction, conduit without effect for trismus
Methods: For this, 13 patients with similarly positioned bilateral third molars were used and each patient served twice as a sample unit. Patients were randomized according to the treatment they would receive, Laser side: single low power laser (810 nm), 6 J (100 mW, 60s / dot); and sham side: laser application simulation. After surgery, patients were followed for three consecutive days to assess 1) Pain, by means of rescue analgesic consumption (NAR), Visual Analog Scale (VAS) in the periods of 0h, 1h, 2h, 3h, 12h , 24h, 48h, 72h and mean time of first analgesic use; 2) Edema, through VAS, and mean obtained from the linear facial measurements obtained between the mandibular angle to the corner of the eye, the tragus to the labial commissure and the tragus to the chin (central portion) in the periods of 0h, 24h, 48h, 72h; 3) Trismus, through the mouth opening average in the periods of 0h, 24h, 48h, 72h.
Results: The VAS results show that the laser better controlled pain at periods of 3 (p = 0.010), 24 (p = 0.002), and 48 hours (p = 0.013). There was no difference between Laser and Sham for NAR (p = 0.329) and for the time required for the first analgesic use (p = 0.462). VAS results for edema show that the laser controlled better at 24 (p = 0.041) and 48 hours (p = 0.013). Mouth opening reduction was smaller in the Sham group in all periods evaluated (p <0.05).
Conclusions: It is concluded that the laser protocol used in this research allowed pain and edema reduction, conduit without effect for trismus