Comparison of two different laser photobiomodulation protocols on the viability of random skin flap in rats.

Comparison of two different laser photobiomodulation protocols on the viability of random skin flap in rats.

Martignago, Cintia Cristina Santi;Tim, C R;Assis, L;Neves, L M G;Bossini, P S;Renno, A C;Avo, L R S;Liebano, R E;Parizotto, N A;
Lasers in medical science 2019 Vol. 34 pp. 1041-1047
307
martignago2019comparisonlasers

Abstract

To identify the best low level laser photobiomodulation application site at the same irradiation time to increase the viability of the skin flap in rats. Eighteen male rats (Rattus norvegicus: var. Albinus, Rodentia Mammalia) were randomly distributed into three groups (n = 6). Group I (GI) was submitted to simulated laser photobiomodulation; group II (GII) was submitted to laser photobiomodulation at three points in the flap cranial base, and group III (GIII) was submitted to laser photobiomodulation at 12 points distributed along the flap. All groups were irradiated with an Indium, Galium, Aluminum, and Phosphorus diode laser (InGaAlP), 660 nm, with 50 mW power, irradiated for a total time of 240 s in continuous emission mode. The treatment started immediately after performing the cranial base random skin flap (10 × 4 cm dimension) and reapplied every 24 h, with a total of five applications. The animals were euthanized after the evaluation of the percentage of necrosis area, and the material was collected for histological analysis on the seventh postoperative day. GII animals presented a statistically significant decrease for the necrosis area when compared to the other groups, and a statistically significant increase in the quantification of collagen when compared to the control. We did not observe a statistical difference between the TGFβ and FGF expression in the different groups evaluated. The application of laser photobiomodulation at three points of the flap cranial base was more effective than at 12 points regarding the reduction of necrosis area.

Citation

ID: 91610
Ref Key: martignago2019comparisonlasers
Use this key to autocite in SciMatic or Thesis Manager

References

Blockchain Verification

Account:
NFT Contract Address:
0x95644003c57E6F55A65596E3D9Eac6813e3566dA
Article ID:
91610
Unique Identifier:
10.1007/s10103-018-2694-3
Network:
Scimatic Chain (ID: 481)
Loading...
Blockchain Readiness Checklist
Authors
Abstract
Journal Name
Year
Title
5/5
Creates 1,000,000 NFT tokens for this article
Token Features:
  • ERC-1155 Standard NFT
  • 1 Million Supply per Article
  • Transferable via MetaMask
  • Permanent Blockchain Record
Blockchain QR Code
Scan with Saymatik Web3.0 Wallet

Saymatik Web3.0 Wallet