These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Comparison of the effects of low-level laser therapy and low-intensity pulsed ultrasound on the process of bone repair in the rat tibia.
    Author: Oliveira P, Sperandio E, Fernandes KR, Pastor FA, Nonaka KO, Renno AC.
    Journal: Rev Bras Fisioter; 2011; 15(3):200-5. PubMed ID: 21829983.
    Abstract:
    BACKGROUND: Electrophysical agents such as Ultrasound (US) and low-level laser therapy (LLLT) have been increasingly used in physical therapy practice. Studies suggest that these devices are able to stimulate osteoblast proliferation and osteogenesis at the fracture site, resulting in a greater deposition of bone mass and speeding up the consolidation process. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to analyze the effects of US and LLLT on the bone healing process, through biomechanical and histological analysis of the bone callus. METHODS: A total of 30 rats were randomly allocated into three groups: control group fracture without treatment (GC); fracture group treated with pulsed US, burst 1.5 MHz, 200 us, 1 KHz, 30 mW/cm² (GUS) and fracture group treated with laser 830 nm, 100 mW, 120 J/cm² (GL). Bone defects were performed with a circular drill of 2mm in diameter in the animal's tibias. The treatments were carried out after surgery consisting of 7 applications every 48 hours. After 14 days the animals were sacrificed and the tibias were removed to perform the analysis, being the right tibia designated for biomechanical analysis, while the left tibia for histological analysis. RESULTS: The biomechanical analysis showed no statistically significant difference between biomechanical properties of the CG, CL and GUS. In morphometric analysis, both GUS and GL showed a significantly higher woven bone tissue area compared to the control group. However, when the two treatment modalities were compared, there were no statistical differences between them. CONCLUSION: Both devices used in this study were able to accelerate the bone healing process in rats.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]