OBJECTIVES: This study evaluates the action of a low-intensity diode laser with gallium-aluminum-arsenide (GaAlAs) active medium on the healing process and analgesia in individuals undergoing free gingival grafts. MATERIAL AND METHOD:Ten individuals needing bilateral gingival graft in the mandibular arch were enrolled in a double-blind study. Each individual had a 30-d interval between the two surgeries. The side receiving application of laser was defined as test side and was established upon surgery; laser application was simulated on the control side. The laser was applied in the immediate postoperative period and after 48 h, and patients rated pain on a scale of 0 to 10, representing minimal and maximal pain, respectively. Photographs were obtained at 7, 15, 30, and 60 d postoperatively and evaluated by five periodontists. RESULTS: No statistically significant difference was found at any postoperative period between control and test sides, even though greater clinical improvement associated with treatment was observed at 15 d postoperative. At 30 and 60 d, some examiners observed the same or greater clinical improvement for the control. Only one individual reported mild to moderate pain on the first postoperative day. CONCLUSIONS:Low-intensity laser therapy did not improve the healing of gingival grafts and did not influence analgesia.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: This study evaluates the action of a low-intensity diode laser with gallium-aluminum-arsenide (GaAlAs) active medium on the healing process and analgesia in individuals undergoing free gingival grafts. MATERIAL AND METHOD: Ten individuals needing bilateral gingival graft in the mandibular arch were enrolled in a double-blind study. Each individual had a 30-d interval between the two surgeries. The side receiving application of laser was defined as test side and was established upon surgery; laser application was simulated on the control side. The laser was applied in the immediate postoperative period and after 48 h, and patients rated pain on a scale of 0 to 10, representing minimal and maximal pain, respectively. Photographs were obtained at 7, 15, 30, and 60 d postoperatively and evaluated by five periodontists. RESULTS: No statistically significant difference was found at any postoperative period between control and test sides, even though greater clinical improvement associated with treatment was observed at 15 d postoperative. At 30 and 60 d, some examiners observed the same or greater clinical improvement for the control. Only one individual reported mild to moderate pain on the first postoperative day. CONCLUSIONS: Low-intensity laser therapy did not improve the healing of gingival grafts and did not influence analgesia.