You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
| Title |
Effects of low-power light therapy on wound healing: LASER x LED*
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Anais Brasileiros de Dermatologia, January 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1590/abd1806-4841.20142519 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Maria Emília de Abreu Chaves, Angélica Rodrigues de Araújo, André Costa Cruz Piancastelli, Marcos Pinotti |
| Abstract |
Several studies demonstrate the benefits of low-power light therapy on wound healing. However, the use of LED as a therapeutic resource remains controversial. There are questions regarding the equality or not of biological effects promoted by LED and LASER. One objective of this review was to determine the biological effects that support the use of LED on wound healing. Another objective was to identify LED´s parameters for the treatment of wounds. The biological effects and parameters of LED will be compared to those of LASER. Literature was obtained from online databases such as Medline, PubMed, Science Direct and Scielo. The search was restricted to studies published in English and Portuguese from 1992 to 2012. Sixty-eight studies in vitro and in animals were analyzed. LED and LASER promote similar biological effects, such as decrease of inflammatory cells, increased fibroblast proliferation, stimulation of angiogenesis, granulation tissue formation and increased synthesis of collagen. The irradiation parameters are also similar between LED and LASER. The biological effects are dependent on irradiation parameters, mainly wavelength and dose. This review elucidates the importance of defining parameters for the use of light devices. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 18 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 3 | 17% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 11% |
| India | 1 | 6% |
| Nigeria | 1 | 6% |
| Unknown | 11 | 61% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 13 | 72% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 3 | 17% |
| Scientists | 2 | 11% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 290 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Japan | 1 | <1% |
| Israel | 1 | <1% |
| Germany | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 287 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 43 | 15% |
| Student > Bachelor | 42 | 14% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 27 | 9% |
| Researcher | 26 | 9% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 21 | 7% |
| Other | 50 | 17% |
| Unknown | 81 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 72 | 25% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 25 | 9% |
| Engineering | 22 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 17 | 6% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 16 | 6% |
| Other | 43 | 15% |
| Unknown | 95 | 33% |