RESUMO
Background: Vascular malformations are structural abnormalities which are formed by progressively enlarging aberrant and ecstatic vessels without endothelial cell proliferation and composed of the type of vessel involved, i.e., capillary, veins, and arteriovenous. Treatment of vascular malformations may involve many techniques like sclerotherapy, embolization, surgical resection, cryotherapy, laser treatment, or medical therapy. This observational prospective study is aimed at evaluating and comparing the effects and efficacy of diode laser and sclerotherapy in the treatment of oral vascular malformation. Materials and Methods: 40 patients presenting with oral vascular malformation were included in the present study. The patients were divided equally (20 in each) into two groups, i.e., the laser group and sclerotherapy group. Sclerotherapy was performed with 3% sodium tetradecyl sulfate while the laser group was treated with diode laser 980 nm with transmucosal thermophotocoagulation. The patients were assessed for the response, remission, and side effects. The results obtained were tabulated and compared with the chi-square test. Results: Side effects were found significantly lesser in the laser group compared to the sclerotherapy group (p < 0.05). Statistically significant difference was seen for postoperative pain between two groups. The laser group had mild to moderate pain compared to severe pain in the sclerotherapy group. Recurrence was observed more in the laser group compared to the sclerotherapy group. Conclusions: Laser and sclerotherapy with 3% sodium tetradecyl sulfate both are effective in the treatment of vascular malformations. Diode laser seems to be better than sclerotherapy given lesser side effects and comfort to the patients while sclerotherapy seems to be better in respect to recurrences.
RESUMO
Background: Pyogenic granuloma (PG) is a tumor-like, non-neoplastic lesion of the soft tissue that commonly appears in the oral cavity. Various treatment modalities have been discussed, including surgical excision, cryosurgery, curettage, electrodessication, corticosteroid injection, sclerotherapy, and lasers. This observational retrospective study compared effectiveness between diode lasers and sclerotherapy for PG treatment. Materials and Methods: From July 2016 to January 2021, data of oral PG cases treated with sclerotherapy and diode lasers were gathered. Patients were evaluated and categorized according to their gender, sex, site of lesions, size of lesions, number of sessions, details of side effects, details of the VAS (Visual Analogue Scale) on third postoperative day, response of treatment to individual groups, time required for complete resolution, and details of recurrence. Inferential statistical analysis was performed. Results: We included 73 patients, of whom 43 and 30 received laser and sclerotherapy treatment, respectively. Compared with the sclerotherapy group, the laser group had less side effects including pain, edema, ulceration, ecchymosis, infections, and scarring. The difference in postoperative pain (VAS scale) between the groups was statistically significant (p-value 0.004). Complete remission was seen in the laser group, while 3 cases of the sclerotherapy group had no response (p-value -0.034). The laser group experienced greater recurrence than did the sclerotherapy group. Conclusions: Both sclerotherapy with laser and 3% sodium tetradecyl sulfate are effective for treating oral PG. Sclerotherapy is more effective in preventing recurrence. In terms of side effects, diode lasers are superior to sclerotherapy.
RESUMO
An ultrasound (US) gives a visible image of the organs that are present inside the body. In medicine it serves for diagnosing and also its therapeutic benefits are well established for bone healing, osteointegration and soft tissue healing. In dentistry it is widely used for diagnostic purposes. When it was discovered it was introduced for therapeutic purposes, but due to lack of clinical studies its use as therapy was remittent in dentistry. The aim of the present paper was to establish the efficiency of therapeutic US in maxillofacial region for alleviating the pain and to see the other applications. Our search included the English terms like ultrasonography, applications, dentistry in Google search engine, PubMed and Medline from 1980 to 2015. We found very few articles showing the effects of therapeutic Ultrasound (US) in treatment of pain and healing in dentistry. We concluded that clinical benefits of in vivo studies were very little and demands further rigorous research to strive for the therapeutic success of US.
