Phototherapy With LED as an Effective Treatment for Chemotherapy-Induced Oral Mucositis in Hamsters.

Introduction: Oral mucositis (OM) has been considered one of the most feared collateral effects of oncological treatments. Some therapies have been used, such as light-emitting diode (LED), with promising results, but with no sufficient evidence in the literature. Objective: Our study aimed to evaluate, by clinical and histological analysis, the effect of LED on the treatment of chemotherapy-induced OM (CIOM) in an animal model. Methods: Twenty male hamsters were equally distributed to two groups: control (C), which received anesthesia and CIOM induction; and LED (L), which received anesthesia, CIOM induction, and LED treatment (635 nm, 120 mW, 0.48 J). The clinical analysis was performed through two specific scales for OM analysis on days 5, 7 and 10 of the experiment. In addition, the injured area of all hamsters check pouch mucosa was removed and processed for histological analysis on the last experimental day. Results: After statistical analysis, group L showed less severity of OM when compared with the C group (P <0.05); beyond that, both healed completely on day 10. Conclusion: Our results suggested that the phototherapy with LED had a positive effect on accelerating repair, reducing the severity of CIOM.

Dosimetric study of photobiomodulation therapy in 5-FU-induced oral mucositis in hamsters.

Oral mucositis (OM) is a debilitating consequence of cancer treatment that could be treated with photobiomodulation therapy (PBMT); however, there is no consensus about its dosimetric parameters for OM healing. The aim of this study was to compare different PBMT protocols on OM treatment, through clinical and histological analysis. Thirty hamsters were used, in an induced model of OM by 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) and superficial scratching, in seven days of follow-up. The animals were divided into five groups: control (C), which received only anesthesia and chemotherapeutic vehicle; chemotherapy (Ch), which received anesthesia, 5-FU, and scratches; laser 1 (L1), the same as Ch group, PBMT 6 ?? J / c m 2 and 0.24 J (one point); laser 2 (L2), the same as Ch group, PBMT 25 ?? J / c m 2 and 1 J (one point); and laser 3 (L3), the same as Ch group, PBMT 4 points of 0.24 J and 6 ?? J / c m 2 each. The laser used has ? = 660 ?? nm , 0.04 ?? c m 2 of spot area, and 40 mW. The best PBMT protocol to maintain lowest OM levels compared to Ch group was L1, followed by L2 and L3. Our results suggest that the application mode of PBMT and the energy delivered per area could interfere with the OM healing.