Navegando por Palavras-chave "Low Level Laser Therapy"

Agora exibindo 1 - 2 de 2
  • Nenhuma Miniatura disponível
    Item
    Somente Metadadados
    Comparative clinical study of the effect of LLLT in the immediate and late treatments of hypoesthesia due to surgical procedures
    (Spie-int Soc Optical Engineering, 2002-01-01) Ladalardo, Thereza CCGP [UNIFESP]; Brugnera, A.; Pinheiro, ALB; Garrini, AEC; Bologna, E. D.; Takamoto, M.; Siqueira, JTT; Dias, P. V.; Campos, Roberto Augusto de Carvalho [UNIFESP]; Rechmann, P.; Fried, D.; Hennig, T.; Universidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP)
    We evaluated the effect of LLLT in 68 patients who presented hypoegthesia due to odontological surgery procedures: dental implant surgeries (N=51); extraction of impacted lower third molars (N=10); endodontics in lower first molars (N=7).Lesions treated within 30 days after the nerve injury had occurred were part of the immediate group, and lesions with more than 30 days from the occurrence of the injury were part of the late group. mm(2),Treatments were carried out with an infrared diode laser of 40 mW - 830nm, continuous wave emission, spot size 3 and a total dosage of 18 joules per session in a contact mode application, 20 sessions altogether.The efficacy of laser therapy in peripheral nerve regeneration is also related to the degree of the peripheral nerve lesion, and not only to the lesion duration.LLLT resulted in neurosensory functional improvement in both immediate and late treatments of hypoesthesia.
  • Nenhuma Miniatura disponível
    Item
    Somente Metadadados
    Efeitos da fotobiomodulação no desempenho físico em atletas: revisão sistemática com metanálise
    (Universidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP), 2021) Guedes, Priscilla Silva [UNIFESP]; Guerra, Ricardo Luís Fernandes [UNIFESP]; Universidade Federal de São Paulo (UNIFESP)
    Context and Objective: Photobiomodulation (FBM) has been studied for many years in various effects, such as: analgesia, tissue repair and tissue healing. Recently, studies have been exploring fatigue recovery and performance in athletes. This study aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to analyze the effect of photobiomodulation on performance in athletes. Methods: A literature search was performed in the databases: MEDLINE (via PubMed), LILACS, PEDro, EMBASE and SPORTSDiscus. The studies were considered eligible when they performed Photobiomodulation with a control or placebo group, in order to assess performance in athletes. Articles in duplicates, reviews, experimental studies in animals, non-athlete and sick individuals were excluded. Searches were not limited by language of publication. The articles were filtered by title and summary using the Rayyan® online collaborative platform. The platform allowed the process to be carried out blindly in the extraction and resolution of duplicates. Two authors worked independently on data extraction (PSG and YLM) and when necessary a third author broke the tie. The articles were read in full when there was not enough information in the summary that could indicate the presence of the required criteria (eg: control group, placebo group or evaluated population). The randomized clinical trials that were included in the review had the risk of bias assessment performed by the Cochrane collaboration tool for risk of bias assessment and the quality of the evidence performed by the GRADE - Grading of Recommendatios Assessment, Development and Evaluation. Results: Of the 53 randomized clinical trials (RTC's) found, 12 criteria were selected for qualitative analysis and 10 RTC's for quantitative analysis (meta-analysis). Regarding the risk of bias, studies show a greater tendency to low risk of bias and in relation to the quality of evidence, the research showed a trend of “moderate” quality of studies. The studies proved to be quite heterogeneous and well diversified in relation to the applicability of the Laser. Meta-analysis showed that: on the strength outcome the effect of Photobiomodulation is no different from the effect of the intervention with Placebo [DMP = 0.13; 95% CI = -0.42; 0.68; p = 0.6405];in power, there were no differences in effects between Photobiomodulation and Placebo interventions [DMP = 0.07; 95% CI = -0.27; 0.41; p = 0.6808]; in velocity, there was no difference when comparing the effect sizes of Photobiomodulation vs Placebo [DMP = -0.15; 95% CI = -0.89; 0.60; p = 0.7001]; and in the and in the resistance outcome, there was no effect of photobiomodulation on this parameter when compared to Placebo [DMP = 0.40; 95% CI = - 0.07; 0.87]. Conclusion: we conclude that although the literature demonstrates positivity in the treatment with photobiomodulation in athletes, in the outcomes researched in this review with meta-analysis there was no difference in the comparison of the effect sizes of Photobiomodulation vs Placebo.