4.4 Article

Comparative study of the effects of low-intensity pulsed ultrasound and low-level laser therapy on bone defects in tibias of rats

期刊

LASERS IN MEDICAL SCIENCE
卷 25, 期 5, 页码 727-732

出版社

SPRINGER LONDON LTD
DOI: 10.1007/s10103-010-0772-2

关键词

Bone repair; Rats; Low-level laser therapy; Low-intensity pulsed ultrasound

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of this study was to investigate and to compare the effects of low intensity ultra-sound (LIPUS) and low-level laser therapy (LLLT) during the process of bone healing by means of histopathological and morphometric analysis. The animals were randomly distributed into three groups of 30 animals each: the control group (bone defect without treatment); the laser-treated group: (bone defect treated with laser), and the LIPUS-treated (bone defect treated with ultrasound). Each group was further divided into three different subgroups (n = 10) and on days 7, 13, and 25 post-injury, rats were killed with an intra-peritoneal injection of general anesthetic. The rats were treated with a 30-mW/cm(2) low-intensity pulsed ultrasound and a 830-nm laser at 50 J/cm(2). The results showed intense new bone formation surrounded by highly vascularized connective tissue presenting a slight osteogenic activity, with primary bone deposition being observed in the group exposed to laser in the intermediary (13 days) and late stages of repair (25 days). This was confirmed by morphometric analysis in which significant statistical differences (p < 0.05) were noticed when compared to the control. No remarkable differences were noticed in the specimens treated with ultrasound with regard to the amount of newly formed bone in comparison to the control group. Taken together, our results indicate that laser therapy improves bone repair in rats as depicted by histopathological and morphometric analysis, mainly at the late stages of recovery. Moreover, it seems that this therapy was more effective than US to accelerate bone healing.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据