Veterinary world · 2024
Assessing the potential efficacy of 830-nanometer low-level laser therapy in cats: Extraoral applications.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Kamlangchai Phanthit, Kampa Naruepon, Srithunyarat Thanikul, Seesupa Suvaluk, Hoisang Somphong, Kaenkangploo Duangdaun, Jitasombuti Preenun, Nonthakotr Chalermkwan, Boonbal Nitaya, Jitpean Supranee
Аннотация
BACKGROUND AND AIM: Low-level laser therapy (LLLT) has shown benefits as an alternative treatment of feline chronic gingivostomatitis by reducing pain and inflammation within the oral cavity. Extraoral application technique in cats provides more comfort compared to intraoral application. However, the efficacy of LLLT through buccal tissue is still controversial. This study aimed to investigate the penetration efficacy of LLLT using 830 nm continuous waves with various settings and different application techniques.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-four healthy cats were included in this study. The wavelength of LLLT was 830 nm with an output power of 200 mW through extraoral application, using fluences of 2 and 6 J/cm2 in continuous-wave mode. This study compared different distances (contact and non-contact) and three different transmission media (absent media, alcohol, and normal saline solution). Measurement of the laser power within the oral cavity is represented as the mean output power (MOP).
RESULTS: Penetration efficacy was detectable for all fluences, distances, and transmission media, with an average buccal thickness of 2.68 mm. MOP did not differ between fluences of 2 and 6 J/cm2 (p = 0.19). In the absence of media, MOP was significantly higher compared with alcohol (p < 0.05) but was not significantly different from normal saline solution (p = 0.26).
CONCLUSION: Extraoral application of LLLT demonstrated penetration efficacy through the buccal tissue with both contact and non-contact skin (<10 mm). This is a potential alternative treatment for oral diseases in clinical practice. However, there is a need for further study on the efficacy of treatment in clinical practice.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-four healthy cats were included in this study. The wavelength of LLLT was 830 nm with an output power of 200 mW through extraoral application, using fluences of 2 and 6 J/cm2 in continuous-wave mode. This study compared different distances (contact and non-contact) and three different transmission media (absent media, alcohol, and normal saline solution). Measurement of the laser power within the oral cavity is represented as the mean output power (MOP).
RESULTS: Penetration efficacy was detectable for all fluences, distances, and transmission media, with an average buccal thickness of 2.68 mm. MOP did not differ between fluences of 2 and 6 J/cm2 (p = 0.19). In the absence of media, MOP was significantly higher compared with alcohol (p < 0.05) but was not significantly different from normal saline solution (p = 0.26).
CONCLUSION: Extraoral application of LLLT demonstrated penetration efficacy through the buccal tissue with both contact and non-contact skin (<10 mm). This is a potential alternative treatment for oral diseases in clinical practice. However, there is a need for further study on the efficacy of treatment in clinical practice.