| Title |
Laser treatment of recurrent herpes labialis: a literature review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Lasers in Medical Science, April 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10103-013-1311-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Carlos de Paula Eduardo, Ana Cecilia Corrêa Aranha, Alyne Simões, Marina Stella Bello-Silva, Karen Muller Ramalho, Marcella Esteves-Oliveira, Patrícia Moreira de Freitas, Juliana Marotti, Jan Tunér |
| Abstract |
Recurrent herpes labialis is a worldwide life-long oral health problem that remains unsolved. It affects approximately one third of the world population and causes frequent pain and discomfort episodes, as well as social restriction due to its compromise of esthetic features. In addition, the available antiviral drugs have not been successful in completely eliminating the virus and its recurrence. Currently, different kinds of laser treatment and different protocols have been proposed for the management of recurrent herpes labialis. Therefore, the aim of the present article was to review the literature regarding the effects of laser irradiation on recurrent herpes labialis and to identify the indications and most successful clinical protocols. The literature was searched with the aim of identifying the effects on healing time, pain relief, duration of viral shedding, viral inactivation, and interval of recurrence. According to the literature, none of the laser treatment modalities is able to completely eliminate the virus and its recurrence. However, laser phototherapy appears to strongly decrease pain and the interval of recurrences without causing any side effects. Photodynamic therapy can be helpful in reducing viral titer in the vesicle phase, and high-power lasers may be useful to drain vesicles. The main advantages of the laser treatment appear to be the absence of side effects and drug interactions, which are especially helpful for older and immunocompromised patients. Although these results indicate a potential beneficial use for lasers in the management of recurrent herpes labialis, they are based on limited published clinical trials and case reports. The literature still lacks double-blind controlled clinical trials verifying these effects and such trials should be the focus of future research. |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 90 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 90 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 15 | 17% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 12% |
| Researcher | 10 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 9 | 10% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 5 | 6% |
| Other | 11 | 12% |
| Unknown | 29 | 32% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 39 | 43% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 4% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 3 | 3% |
| Chemistry | 3 | 3% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 2 | 2% |
| Other | 7 | 8% |
| Unknown | 32 | 36% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. 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 March 2015.
All research outputs
#4,172,589
of 22,796,179 outputs
Outputs from Lasers in Medical Science
#92
of 1,307 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#35,839
of 198,666 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Lasers in Medical Science
#1
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,796,179 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 80th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,307 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 198,666 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.