RESUMO
INTRODUCTION AND AIM: Low Level Laser Therapy (LLLT) can facilitate wound healing stimulating a more rapid resolution and an earlier start for the proliferation phase. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the effects of LLLT on postoperative pain and oedema following the removal of impacted lower third molars. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Fifty-nine patients, who were to undergo surgical removal of their lower third molars, were studied. Patients were randomly allocated to one of three groups: 17 patients LLLT + traditional drug treatment17 patients traditional drug treatment as control group25 patients treated with LLLT only on one side+traditional drug treatment. The laser we have used for this study is a diode laser, GaAs, which delivers both in the infrared band at the wavelength of 910 nanometers (pulsed and superpulsed source), and in the visible (continuous source) at the wavelength of 650 nanometers (red). LLLT was performed just after the intervention and approximately 12 hours after surgery delivering 240 J in 15 minutes with theoretical fluence values of 480 J/cm(2) and 31 J/cm(2) for every minute of irradiation. We considered and signed with a label constant landmarks on both sides of the face of each patient; measurements were taken: before the surgery, after the surgery right after the 1st laser treatment, after approximately 24 hours after the 2(nd) laser treatment. RESULTS: We collected all the values of the oedema measurements and the VAS reports and performed a statistical analysis by means One-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) test: for the evaluated values (X, Y, Z) an extremely significant difference was found with p values of 0.003 for Y at the first evaluation (pre-12 hours) and less than 0.001 for the other evaluations. A significant result was obtained for VAS recorded at hospital discharge (p<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that LLLT is effective on postoperative pain and oedema accelerating healing time and reducing patients distress.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: There is agreement that symptomatic plates should be removed, but there is no consensus among maxillofacial surgeons on the need for routine removal of asymptomatic plates. Only by evaluating long follow-up studies conducted with large-volume data that guidelines about when to remove and why remove plates used for internal rigid fixation can be traced. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study was conducted as a retrospective study. Clinical findings of all the patients presented at the department of maxillofacial surgery of 2 Italian hospitals, in whom miniplates were inserted between January 2004 and December 2007, were included: a follow-up of these patients was conducted until August 2009. RESULTS: The region most involved with plates' insertion was the upper maxilla (49.8%), followed by mandibular body (38.1%), angle (7.9%), condyle (2.4%), and symphysis (1.8%). The region most involved in plates' removal was the maxilla in 9%, followed by mandibular body in the 7.5%. All plates inserted in angle regions were removed. Plates placed in the condylar area did not need any plate removal. CONCLUSIONS: From this study, there is no evidence to support the advice for routine removal of titanium miniplates from the maxillofacial skeleton, although when using plates in the mandibular angle region, it would be necessary to inform the patient about the very high probability of a second operation necessary for the plates' removal.
