| Title |
Low-level laser therapy as an alternative for pulpotomy in human primary teeth
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Lasers in Medical Science, September 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10103-014-1656-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Nádia Carolina Teixeira Marques, Natalino Lourenço Neto, Camila de Oliveira Rodini, Ana Paula Fernandes, Vivien Thiemy Sakai, Maria Aparecida Andrade Moreira Machado, Thais Marchini Oliveira |
| Abstract |
This study aimed to evaluate the effects of low-level laser therapy (LLLT) on pulpal response of primary teeth. Twenty mandibular primary molars were randomly divided into the following groups: group I Buckley's formocresol (diluted at 1:5), group II calcium hydroxide, group III LLLT + zinc oxide/eugenol, and group IV LLLT + calcium hydroxide. LLLT parameters were set at 660-nm wavelength, 10-mW power output, and 2.5 J/cm(2) energy density for 10 s in continuous mode (InGaAlP laser, Twin Laser®, MMOptics, Sao Carlos, Sao Paulo, Brazil). The teeth were extracted at the regular exfoliation period. The dentin-pulp complex was graded by an established histopathological score system. Statistical analysis was performed by Kruskal-Wallis and chi-square test. The histopathological assessment revealed statistically significant differences among groups (P < 0.05). The lowest degree of pulpal inflammation was present in LLLT + calcium hydroxide (P = 0.0296). Calcium hydroxide showed the highest rate of hard tissue barrier (P = 0.0033), odontoblastic layer (P = 0.0033), and dense collagen fibers (P = 0.0095). On the other hand, formocresol showed the highest incidence of internal resorption (P = 0.0142). Based on this study, low-level laser therapy preceding the use of calcium hydroxide exhibited satisfactory results on pulp tissue healing. However, further clinical studies on human teeth with long-term follow-up are needed to test the low-level laser therapy efficacy. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 2 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 198 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Brazil | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 197 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 32 | 16% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 18 | 9% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 17 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 16 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 11 | 6% |
| Other | 28 | 14% |
| Unknown | 76 | 38% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 89 | 45% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 4% |
| Unspecified | 7 | 4% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 3% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 1% |
| Other | 11 | 6% |
| Unknown | 77 | 39% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 September 2015.
All research outputs
#16,279,421
of 25,707,225 outputs
Outputs from Lasers in Medical Science
#632
of 1,416 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#142,219
of 263,056 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Lasers in Medical Science
#12
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,707,225 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,416 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 263,056 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 37 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its contemporaries.