RESUMEN
[Purpose] This study aimed to evaluate the anti-inflammatory and analgesic effects of intraoral application of low-level laser therapy (660â nm) to control pain, swelling and interincisal opening following the extraction of mandibular third molars. [Subjects and Methods] Ten patients underwent removal of lower third molars using the same surgical protocol and pharmacological approach. In the postoperative period, all patients received four consecutive daily sessions of low-level laser therapy, beginning 24 hours after the surgery. Intraoral applications using the diode laser with 660â nm wavelength in the continuous scan mode were performed covering the entire surgical area, which was divided into four quadrants, each of 1â cm(2) area at a distance of 1â cm. The energy applied at each point was 5â J/cm(2) during 8 seconds. [Results] The swelling and interincisal opening returned to normal 24 hours after the first low-level laser therapy application (Friedman test). Moreover, the pain intensity was reduced on the third postoperative day, according to the Friedman test. [Conclusion] Low-level laser therapy (660â nm), at the dosimetry used in this study, was effective in reducing postoperative pain and swelling following oral surgery.
RESUMEN
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate healing time before loading, areas compression and tension and location of insertion on mini-implant stability. DESIGN: Six minipigs were used. Each animal received 3 mini-implants in each quadrant: 1 mini-implant was used as an unloaded control (G1, n=24); the other 2 were loaded with 150g-force at three time intervals (G2: immediate loading, G3: after 15 days and G4: after 30 days), with 16 mini-implant in each experimental group. After 120 days, tissue blocks of the areas of interest were harvested. Clinical analysis (exact Fisher test) determined the survival rate. Histological analysis (Kontron KS 300™, Zeiss) quantified the fractional bone-to-implant contact (%BIC) and bone area (%BA) at each healing time point, areas of interest, and insertion site (ANOVA and t tests for dependent and independent samples). RESULTS: The mini-implant survival rates were G1: 71%, G2: 50%, G3: 75% and G4: 63%, with no statistical differences between them. The groups presented similar %BIC and %BA. There were no differences between the compression and tension sides or maxillary and mandibular insertion sites. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that low-intensity immediate or early orthodontic loading does not affect mini-implant stability, because similar histomorphometric results were observed for all the groups, with partial osseointegration of the mini-implants present.