Diego Assunção Calixto Da Silva1, Fabio De Lucas Da Silva Almeida1, Tamara Melo Nunes Ota1, Douglas Magno Guimaraes2, Kristianne Porta Santos Fernandes3. 1. Resident, Dental School, University Center of Pará, Belém, Pará, Brazil. 2. Professor, Dental School, University Center of Pará, Belém, Pará, Brazil; Staff, EBSERH, Belém, Pará, Brazil; and Posgradute Student, Postgraduate Program in Biophotonics Applied to Health Sciences, Nove de Julho University - UNINOVE, São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil. Electronic address: Douglas_guima@hotmail.com. 3. Department Head, Postgraduate Program in Biophotonics Applied to Health Sciences, Nove de Julho University - UNINOVE, São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil.
Abstract
PURPOSE: In this study we aimed to compare the effects of photobiomodulation (PBM) and dexamethasone (DXM) on pain, swelling, and the quality-of-life (QOL) of patients submitted to buccal fat pad removal. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 20 patients with pseudoherniation of buccal fat pad were included in the present study. The patients were divided randomly into 2 groups: the PBM group (660 nm, 100 mW, 6 seconds, 2 J/cm2) and the DXM group (4 mg every 8 hours for 3 days after the procedure). Pain levels were evaluated using a visual analog scale at days 2 and 4 after surgery, whereas the edema was evaluated by measuring the distance between 6 reference points: tragus, pogonion of the soft tissue, lateral eye commissure, the gonial angle, nose wing, and mouth commissure at days 2, 4, 7, 15, 30, 60, and 90. The QOL was evaluated using the Oral Health Impact Profile 14 questionnaire at days 2 and 4 after surgery. RESULTS: There were no differences between the PBM and DXM groups in pain or edema. In terms of the QOL, the PBM group was significantly more comfortable when chewing than the DXM group (P < .05) CONCLUSION: The use of PBM at a power of 100 mW and 2 J/cm2 per point had similar effects to oral DXM for the control of pain and edema, as well as in the QOL, except for masticatory function, which was significantly better in the PBM group.
PURPOSE: In this study we aimed to compare the effects of photobiomodulation (PBM) and dexamethasone (DXM) on pain, swelling, and the quality-of-life (QOL) of patients submitted to buccal fat pad removal. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 20 patients with pseudoherniation of buccal fat pad were included in the present study. The patients were divided randomly into 2 groups: the PBM group (660 nm, 100 mW, 6 seconds, 2 J/cm2) and the DXM group (4 mg every 8 hours for 3 days after the procedure). Pain levels were evaluated using a visual analog scale at days 2 and 4 after surgery, whereas the edema was evaluated by measuring the distance between 6 reference points: tragus, pogonion of the soft tissue, lateral eye commissure, the gonial angle, nose wing, and mouth commissure at days 2, 4, 7, 15, 30, 60, and 90. The QOL was evaluated using the Oral Health Impact Profile 14 questionnaire at days 2 and 4 after surgery. RESULTS: There were no differences between the PBM and DXM groups in pain or edema. In terms of the QOL, the PBM group was significantly more comfortable when chewing than the DXM group (P < .05) CONCLUSION: The use of PBM at a power of 100 mW and 2 J/cm2 per point had similar effects to oral DXM for the control of pain and edema, as well as in the QOL, except for masticatory function, which was significantly better in the PBM group.
Authors: Fabiana Velasquez; Evelyn Nuñez; Juan Diego Gutiérrrez; Pedro Christian Aravena Journal: Patient Prefer Adherence Date: 2022-09-29 Impact factor: 2.314