Scholarlink

Objective <p>To evaluate whether photobiomodulation (PBM) reduces postoperative pain and inflammation in patients undergoing a soft tissue oral biopsy, compared with a sham treatment.</p> Materials and methods <p>A prospective, randomized controlled clinical study was conducted. Oral mucosal biopsies were performed using a standardized protocol. Group allocation was carried out using simple randomization. Participants were assigned to two groups: active PBM (<i>n</i> = 31) and simulated (sham) PBM (<i>n</i> = 31). A single intraoral PBM session (wavelength 940&#xa0;nm, output power 0.5&#xa0;W) was applied immediately after the biopsy procedure.</p> Results <p>No statistically significant differences were observed between the groups with respect to pain or inflammation reduction during the 7-day follow-up period. Both variables decreased over time in both groups, with no significant group effect or group–time interaction effect (<i>p</i> = 0.279 and <i>p</i> = 0.220, respectively).</p> Conclusions <p>A single session of PBM applied immediately after a soft tissue oral biopsy did not demonstrate additional benefits compared with sham treatment in reducing postoperative pain or inflammation over a 7-day period. Further studies using optimized PBM protocols are needed to better define its potential role in this clinical setting.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Effect of immediate photobiomodulation on pain and inflammation after oral biopsy: A randomized clinical study

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年2月24日

查看全文
  • Yolanda Collado-Murcia,
  • Francisco Parra-Perez,
  • Pia López-Jornet

摘要

Objective

To evaluate whether photobiomodulation (PBM) reduces postoperative pain and inflammation in patients undergoing a soft tissue oral biopsy, compared with a sham treatment.

Materials and methods

A prospective, randomized controlled clinical study was conducted. Oral mucosal biopsies were performed using a standardized protocol. Group allocation was carried out using simple randomization. Participants were assigned to two groups: active PBM (n = 31) and simulated (sham) PBM (n = 31). A single intraoral PBM session (wavelength 940 nm, output power 0.5 W) was applied immediately after the biopsy procedure.

Results

No statistically significant differences were observed between the groups with respect to pain or inflammation reduction during the 7-day follow-up period. Both variables decreased over time in both groups, with no significant group effect or group–time interaction effect (p = 0.279 and p = 0.220, respectively).

Conclusions

A single session of PBM applied immediately after a soft tissue oral biopsy did not demonstrate additional benefits compared with sham treatment in reducing postoperative pain or inflammation over a 7-day period. Further studies using optimized PBM protocols are needed to better define its potential role in this clinical setting.