OBJECTIVE: This study investigated the effects of low-level laser therapy (LLLT) and electrical stimulation (ES) on bone loss in spinal cord-injured rats. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-seven male Wistar rats were divided into four groups: standard control group (CG); spinal cord-injured control (SC); spinal cord-injured treated with laser (SCL; GaAlAs, 830 nm, CW, 30 mW/cm, 250 J/cm(2)); and spinal cord-injured treated with electrical field stimulation (SCE; 1.5 MHz, 1:4 duty cycles, 30 mW, 20 min). Biomechanical, densitometric, and morphometric analyses were performed. RESULTS: SC rats showed a significant decrease in bone mass, biomechanical properties, and morphometric parameters (versus CG). SCE rats showed significantly higher values of inner diameter and internal and external areas of tibia diaphyses; and the SCL group showed a trend toward the same result (versus SC). No increase was found in either mechanical or densitometric parameters. CONCLUSION: We conclude that the mentioned treatments were able to initiate a positive bone-tissue response, maybe through stimulation of osteoblasts, which was able to determine the observed morphometric modifications. However, the evoked tissue response could not determine either biomechanical or densitometric modifications.
OBJECTIVE: This study investigated the effects of low-level laser therapy (LLLT) and electrical stimulation (ES) on bone loss in spinal cord-injured rats. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-seven male Wistar rats were divided into four groups: standard control group (CG); spinal cord-injured control (SC); spinal cord-injured treated with laser (SCL; GaAlAs, 830 nm, CW, 30 mW/cm, 250 J/cm(2)); and spinal cord-injured treated with electrical field stimulation (SCE; 1.5 MHz, 1:4 duty cycles, 30 mW, 20 min). Biomechanical, densitometric, and morphometric analyses were performed. RESULTS: SC rats showed a significant decrease in bone mass, biomechanical properties, and morphometric parameters (versus CG). SCE rats showed significantly higher values of inner diameter and internal and external areas of tibia diaphyses; and the SCL group showed a trend toward the same result (versus SC). No increase was found in either mechanical or densitometric parameters. CONCLUSION: We conclude that the mentioned treatments were able to initiate a positive bone-tissue response, maybe through stimulation of osteoblasts, which was able to determine the observed morphometric modifications. However, the evoked tissue response could not determine either biomechanical or densitometric modifications.
Authors: Hoon Chung; Tianhong Dai; Sulbha K Sharma; Ying-Ying Huang; James D Carroll; Michael R Hamblin Journal: Ann Biomed Eng Date: 2011-11-02 Impact factor: 3.934
Authors: Mit Balvantray Bhavsar; Zhihua Han; Thomas DeCoster; Liudmila Leppik; Karla Mychellyne Costa Oliveira; John H Barker Journal: Eur J Trauma Emerg Surg Date: 2019-04-06 Impact factor: 3.693
Authors: Marcus K Giacci; Lachlan Wheeler; Sarah Lovett; Emma Dishington; Bernadette Majda; Carole A Bartlett; Emma Thornton; Elizabeth Harford-Wright; Anna Leonard; Robert Vink; Alan R Harvey; Jan Provis; Sarah A Dunlop; Nathan S Hart; Stuart Hodgetts; Riccardo Natoli; Corinna Van Den Heuvel; Melinda Fitzgerald Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-08-08 Impact factor: 3.240