METHODS: Six makes, three each monocrystalline (M) and polycrystalline (P) were used; PureSapphire (M), SPA Aesthetic (M), Ghost (M), Mist (P), Reflections (P), and Dual Ceramic (P). The Ortholux™ Light Curing Unit (LCU) was used to cure the orthodontic adhesive Transbond™XT. The LCU's tip irradiance was measured and TLE transmitted through the ceramic bracket was obtained, then adhesive added to the bracket, and transmitted TLE measured through bracket-plus-adhesive samples. The LCU was set at five seconds as recommended for curing adhesive through ceramic brackets.
RESULTS: Mean tip irradiance was 1859.2±16.2mW/cm2. The TLE transmitted through brackets alone ranged 1.7 to 3.9J/cm2, in the descending order: Ghost>Pure Sapphire>Reflections>Mist>SPA Aesthetics>Dual Ceramic. The TLE transmitted through bracket-plus-adhesive samples ranged 1.6 to 3.7J/cm2, in the descending order: Ghost>Mist>Reflections>Pure Sapphire>SPA Aesthetics>Dual Ceramic. TLE was reduced with the addition of adhesive (range -0.1 to -0.7J/cm2). There was a significant difference for Pure Sapphire, Reflections, and Mist (P<0.05), but not for SPA Aesthetics, Ghost, and Dual Ceramic. There was no overall significant difference between the monocrystalline and polycrystalline makes. The two best makes were of the monocrystalline type, concerning TLE transmission, but with the exception of polycrystalline Dual Ceramic; the next worst make was a monocrystalline bracket, SPA Aesthetics.
CONCLUSION: Light energy attenuation through ceramic orthodontic brackets is make-dependent, with no overall difference between monocrystalline and polycrystalline brackets. Light energy is further attenuated with the addition of resin-based orthodontic adhesive.
MATERIALS AND METHOD: Forty-five patients with dry socket were divided into two treatment groups. Group I dry socket patients (n = 30) received conventional treatment while group II patients (n = 15) were irradiated with LLLT at a setting of 200-mW, 6-J, continuous-wave mode using an R02 tipless handpiece (Fotona Er:YAG, Europe), on the buccal, lingual, and middle surfaces of the socket for 30 s from a delivery distance of 1 cm. Pain score and quantification of granulation tissue in the socket were recorded at 0, 4, and 7 days post-dry socket treatment.
RESULTS: Results showed that the LLLT-irradiated group II sockets showed a much lower VAS pain score of 1-2 as early as day 4, and a richer amount of granulation tissue compared to the conventional treated group I socket. The amount and rate of granulation tissue formation in the dry socket are inversely proportional to the pain score showing significant clinical effectiveness of LLLT on promoting the healing of the dry socket, with improvement in symptoms (P = .001). Conventionally treated dry sockets take at least 7 days to match the effective healing of an LLLT-irradiated dry socket.
CONCLUSION: LLLT irradiation influences biomodulation of dry socket healing by dampening inflammation, promoting vascularization, stimulating granulation, and controlling pain symptoms.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE: LLLT may be an additional effective tool for managing dry sockets in general dental practice.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Sixty patients with one dry socket each, at University Dental Hospital Sharjah, were divided into three treatment groups based on their choice. In group I (n = 30), conventional treatment comprising of gentle socket curettage and saline irrigation was done. Group II (n = 15) dry sockets were treated with CGF and group III (n = 15) sockets were lased with LLLT. All dry socket patients were seen at day 0 for treatment and subsequently followed-up at 4, 7, 14, and 21 days. Pain score, perisocket inflammation, perisocket tenderness, and amount of granulation tissue formation were noted.
STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: Data were analyzed as mean values for each treatment group. Comparisons were made for statistical analysis within the group and among the three groups to rank the efficacy of treatment using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). Statistically significant difference is kept at p < 0.05.
RESULTS: Conventional treatment group I took more than 7 days to match the healing phase of group II CGF treated socket and group III LLLT irradiated socket (p = 0.001). When healing rate between CGF and LLLT are compared, LLLT group III showed a delay of 4 days compared with CGF in granulation tissue formation and pain control.
CONCLUSION: CGF treated socket was superior to LLLT in its ability to generate 75% granulation tissue and eliminate pain symptom by day 7 (p = 0.001).
METHODS: Eighty (80) male, 6-week-old Sprague Dawley rats were grouped in to four groups, the first group was irradiated with (940 nm) diode laser, second group with LIPUS, and third group with combination of both LLLT and LIPUS. A forth group used was a control group in an incomplete block split-mouth design. The LLLT and LIPUS were used to treat the area around the moving tooth once a day on days 0-7, then the experiment was ended in each experimental endpoint (1, 3, 7, 14, and 21 days). For amount of tooth movement, models were imaged and analyzed. Histological examination was performed after staining with (hematoxylin and eosin) and (alizarin red and Alcian Blue) stain. One step reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction RT-PCR was also performed to elucidate the gene expression of RANK, RANKL, OPG, and RUNX-2.
RESULTS: The amount of tooth movement, the histological bone remodeling, and the RT-PCR were significantly greater in the treatment groups than that in the control group. Among the treatment groups, the combination group was the highest and the LIPUS group was the lowest.
CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that LLLT and LIPUS can enhance the velocity of tooth movement and improve the quality of bone remodeling during orthodontic tooth movement.