Extracorporeal Shock-Wave Therapy or Low-Level Laser Therapy

2020 ◽  
Vol Publish Ahead of Print ◽  
Author(s):  
Esma Bilge Göl ◽  
Nilüfer Özkan ◽  
Cihan Bereket ◽  
Mehmet Emin Önger
Keyword(s):  
Shock Wave ◽  
Laser Therapy ◽  
Extracorporeal Shock Wave Therapy ◽  
Low Level Laser Therapy ◽  
Shock Wave Therapy ◽  
Low Level ◽  
Low Level Laser ◽  
Extracorporeal Shock Wave ◽  
Level Laser

scholarly journals TL - 18173 - The effect of low-level laser therapy in the management of plantar fasciitis

2019 ◽  
Vol 13 (Supl 1) ◽  
pp. 101S
Author(s):  
Janice De Souza Guimarães ◽  
Fabio Luciano Arcanjo de Jesus ◽  
Gustavo Leporace De Oliveira Lomelino Soares ◽  
Leonardo Fossati Metsavaht ◽  
Túlio Eduardo Marçal Vieira ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Shock Wave ◽  
Laser Therapy ◽  
Plantar Fasciitis ◽  
Extracorporeal Shock Wave Therapy ◽  
Low Level Laser Therapy ◽  
Shock Wave Therapy ◽  
Low Level ◽  
Low Level Laser ◽  
Extracorporeal Shock Wave ◽  
Level Laser

Introduction: Plantar fasciitis (PF) is one of the common reasons for foot pain and is associated with substantial health and economic burden. PF often responds to a wide range of therapies that are predominantly conservative. We performed a meta-analysis to investigate the effects of low-level laser therapy on pain and disability in patients with PF. Methods: Studies were comprehensively searched in Pubmed MEDLINE, the PEDro database, the Scientific Electronic Library Online, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, from the earliest date available to January 2019. Randomized controlled trials that evaluated the effects of low-level laser therapy versus control or another intervention for patients with PF were included. Mean differences (MD) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated, and heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 test. Calculations were performed using a random effects model, with two comparisons: low-level laser therapy compared with the control (no intervention); low-level laser therapy compared with extracorporeal shock wave therapy. Results: Eight trials met the study criteria, including 473 PF patients. The main outcomes included changes from baseline in the Visual Analogue Scale Score (pain) and Foot Function Index (disability). Low-level laser therapy resulted in improvement in pain MD (-2.27 95% CI: -2.72 to -1.82 N=184) compared with the control. No significant difference in disability MD (-1.81 95% CI: -7.4 to 3.8 N=110) was found in participants in the low-level laser therapy group compared with the control group. Compared with extracorporeal shock wave therapy, low-level laser therapy did not achieve a significant reduction in pain intensity MD (0.45 95% CI: -2.4 to 3.3 N=141). In addition, no serious adverse events were reported.  Conclusion: Low-level laser therapy may improve pain and should be considered as a component of care for PF patients. However, this superiority disappeared when it was compared to extracorporeal shock wave therapy.  

scholarly journals Comparison of effects of low-level laser therapy and extracorporeal shock wave therapy in calcaneal spur treatment: A prospective, randomized, clinical study

2021 ◽  
Vol 67 (2) ◽  
pp. 218-224
Author(s):  
Sevtap Badil Güloğlu ◽  
Ümit Yalçın
Keyword(s):  
Shock Wave ◽  
Laser Therapy ◽  
Plantar Fascia ◽  
Extracorporeal Shock Wave Therapy ◽  
Low Level Laser Therapy ◽  
Shock Wave Therapy ◽  
Low Level Laser ◽  
Extracorporeal Shock Wave ◽  
Level Laser ◽  
Painful Heel

Objectives: In this study, we aimed to evaluate and compare the efficacy of low-level laser therapy (LLLT) and extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) in the treatment of calcaneal spurs. Patients and methods: A total of 62 patients (14 males, 48 females; mean age: 47.6±11.7 years; range, 18 to 70 years) who were diagnosed with calcaneal spurs based on clinical examination and plain radiography between April 2019 and September 2019 were included in this study. A total of 15 sessions of plantar fascia gastroc-soleus stretching exercises and cold pack treatments were given to both groups. The LLLT (904 nm wavelength, 3,000 Hz, 8 J/cm2 dose to the painful heel area and insertion of the plantar fascia on the medial calcaneal area, five points for a total of 5 min for three weeks) was applied to the first group (n=31), whereas ESWT (10 Hz, 2,000 shock waves with a 2.5 bar pressure into the areas of the painful heel, insertion of the plantar fascia on the medial calcaneal area) was applied the second group (n=31). All patients were evaluated using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) and Foot Function Index (FFI) before and after treatment. Results: In both groups, the median VAS and FFI scores after treatment showed a significant improvement, compared to pre-treatment scores (p=0.001). There was no significant difference between the groups in terms of the median post-treatment VAS scores (p>0.05). In the ESWT group, the median FFI pain and total scores after treatment were significantly lower than in the LLLT group (p=0.033). The change in the median FFI pain and total scores were significantly higher in the ESWT group (p=0.046). Conclusion: Both treatment modalities are effective and not superior to each other in terms of disability and activity limitation reduction, although a greater improvement in the FFI pain and total scores can be achieved with the ESWT. Based on these findings, we recommend both non-invasive treatment methods to be used in the treatment of calcaneal spurs in the clinical practice.

Assessment of healing of dental implant surgical site following Low-Level Laser Therapy using Bio-Clinical parameters: An Exploratory Study

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
VARSHA PALLED ◽  
DR. JITENDRA RAO ◽  
DR. RAGHUWAR DAYAL SINGH ◽  
DR. SHUCHI TRIPATHI ◽  
DR. KALPANA SINGH ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Laser Therapy ◽  
Test Group ◽  
Low Level Laser Therapy ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Clinical Parameters ◽  
Implant Stability ◽  
Low Level ◽  
Implant Stability Quotient ◽  
Low Level Laser ◽  
Level Laser

The purpose of this study was to evaluate whether Low-Level Laser Therapy (LLLT) improves the healing of the implant surgical site with clinical and biochemical parameters.Thirty patients with an edentulous space spanning a single tooth were selected. The patients were randomly allocated to two groups - the control group and the test group. The test group received laser energy at a power of 2J/cm 2 with a total of 4-6J energy over each implant. Clinical parameters (Implant Stability Quotient, probing index, modified sulcus bleeding index)and osteoprotegerin (OPG) were assessed at baseline and follow-up intervals (2 weeks, 6 weeks, and 3 months).The test group showed significantly higher implant stability quotient compared to thecontrol group at 2 weeks(57.93±3.95 and 35.67±3.08; p<0.01) and 3months(58.86±3.75 and 67.06±3.78; p<0.01). A significant rise in OPG levels of the test group(686.30±125.36pg/ml at baseline and 784.25±108.30pg/ml at 3months;p<0.01) was seen contrary to significant decline in the control group (839.50±249.08pg/ml at baseline,415.30±78.39pg/ml at 3months;p<0.01). Within the limitations of the study, the study suggests that the healing of peri-implant hard and soft tissues may be enhanced with the use of LLLT as an explicit modality during the post-operative period.

Low-level laser therapy for neurosensory recovery after sagittal ramus osteotomy

2020 ◽  
Vol 69 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Paulo Esteves Pinto Faria ◽  
Astrid Temprano ◽  
Fábio Piva ◽  
Eduardo Sant'ana ◽  
Dênis Pimenta
Keyword(s):  
Laser Therapy ◽  
Low Level Laser Therapy ◽  
Low Level ◽  
Low Level Laser ◽  
Level Laser
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document