Relevance of laser irradiance threshold in the induction of alkaline phosphatase in human osteoblast cultures

Effects of Different Parameters of Diode Laser on Acceleration of Orthodontic Tooth Movement and Its Effect on Relapse: An Experimental Animal Study

AIM

Recent studies have demonstrated that low-level laser therapy (LLLT) can accelerate orthodontic tooth movement. However, there is still controversy about the optimum parameters that can cause acceleration. The present study was designed to examine two different doses of LLLT in the acceleration of orthodontic tooth movement and their effect on relapse.

METHODS

An orthodontic appliance was designed to induce tooth movement on lower incisors of rabbits. The in-al-as diode laser was used to radiate different groups of rabbits according to a specific protocol. The amount of tooth movement was measured for 21 days, and then the orthodontic appliance was removed, and the relapse was measured till day 28.

RESULTS

The amount of tooth movement was significantly greater in the group with irradiation of low dose in comparison with the high dose group and the control group. The relapse was greatest in the group of low dose irradiation and least in the control group.

CONCLUSION

The findings suggest that LLLT with a low dose accelerate the orthodontic tooth movement while LLLT with a high dose was not able to have the same effect. LLLT had a reverse effect on relapse tendency; an increase in the relapse tendency was seen with low dose irradiation.

The effect of low-level laser therapy on orthodontically induced root resorption: a pilot double blind randomized controlled trial

Background

The effect of low-level laser therapy (LLLT) on accelerating orthodontic tooth movement has been extensively studied; however, there is limited knowledge on the use of LLLT on orthodontic root resorption.

Objective

To investigate the effect of LLLT on orthodontically induced inflammatory root resorption (OIIRR) and to compare the difference between pulsed and continuous LLLT on OIIRR.

Trial design

Double-blind, single-centre 3-arm parallel split-mouth randomized controlled trial.

Participants

Twenty adolescent patients who required bilateral maxillary first premolar (MFP) orthodontic extractions were recruited from the Sydney Dental Hospital between October 2014 and December 2014.

Intervention

All MFPs were tipped buccally for 28 days to induce OIIRR. The experimental premolars (n = 20) received LLLT and the control premolars (n = 20) received placebo-laser on days 0, 1, 2, 3, 7, 14, and 21. Ten experimental premolars received LLLT via continuous delivery and 10 received pulsed delivery.

Laser parameter

AlGaAs diode laser of 808 nm wavelength, 0.18 W power, 1.6 J per point, and duration of 9s for continuous mode and 4.5 s for pulsed mode.

Outcome

The difference in root resorption crater volume between LLLT and placebo-laser and continuous or pulsed laser delivery after 28 days.

Randomization

Randomization was computer-generated, with allocation concealment by opaque sequentially numbered sealed envelopes.

Blinding

The participants and operator were blinded.

Results

Eighty-eight patients were screened and 20 patients were randomized. Forty premolars were analysed. LLLT resulted in 23 per cent less root resorption compared to the placebo (P = 0.026). Pulsed laser delivery resulted in 5 per cent less root resorption than continuous; however, this was not statistically significant (P = 0.823). No harm was observed.

Conclusion

Teeth treated with LLLT had less total root resorption than placebo-laser. Furthermore, there was minimal difference between pulsed or continuous delivery of LLLT.

Trial Registration

Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12616000829415).

Protocol

The protocol was not published before trial commencement.

Comparison of the in vitro effects of low-level laser therapy and low-intensity pulsed ultrasound therapy on bony cells and stem cells

To compare the in vitro effectiveness of Low-Level Laser Therapy (LLLT) and Low Intensity Pulsed Ultrasound (LIPUS) on bony cells and related stem cells. In this study, we aim to systematically review the published scientific literature which explores the use of LLLT and LIPUS to biostimulate the activity or the proliferation of bony cells or stem cells in vitro. We searched the database PubMed for LLLT or LIPUS, with/without bone, osteoblast, osteocyte, stem cells, the human osteosarcoma cell line (MG63), bone-forming cells, and cell culture (or in vitro). These studies were subdivided into categories exploring the effect of LLLT or LIPUS on bony cells, stem cells, and other related cells. 75 articles were found between 1987 and 2016; these included: 50 full paper articles on LLLT and 25 full papers on LIPUS. These articles met the eligibility criteria and were included in our review. A detailed and concise description of the LLLT and the LIPUS protocols and their individual effects on bony cells or stem cells and their results are presented in five tables. Based on the main results and the conclusions of the reviewed articles in the current work, both, LLLT and LIPUS, apply a biostimulatory effect on osteoblasts, osteocytes, and enhance osteoblast proliferation and differentiation on different bony cell lines used in in vitro studies, and therefore, these may be useful tools for bone regeneration therapy. Moreover, in consideration of future cell therapy protocols, both, LLLT and LIPUS (especially LLLT), enhnce a significant increase in the initial number of SCs before differentiation, thus increasing the number of differentiated cells for tissue engineering, regenerative medicine, and healing. Further studies are necessary to determine the LLLT or the LIPUS parameters, which are optimal for biostimsulating bony cells and SCs for bone healing and regenerative medicine.

Laser phototherapy at high energy densities do not stimulate pre-osteoblast growth and differentiation

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to evaluate the effects of red and infrared lasers at high energy densities on pre-osteoblast MC3T3 proliferation and differentiation.

BACKGROUND DATA

The acceleration of bone regeneration by low intensity laser irradiation may hold potential benefits in clinical therapy in orthopedics and dentistry.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Cells were irradiated with red (660 nm) and infrared (780 nm) lasers (90 and 150 J/cm2, 40 mW). The control group did not receive irradiation. Cell growth was assessed by a colorimetric test (MTT) (24, 48, 72, 96 h) and cell differentiation was evaluated by alkaline phosphatase (ALP) quantification after growth in osteogenic medium (72, 96 h; 7, 14 days).

RESULTS

None of the irradiation groups had an enhancement in cell growth (p<0.05). The production of ALP was not influenced by irradiation at any period of time (p>0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

The low intensity laser stimulated neither cell growth nor the production of alkaline phosphatase.

Laser and light-emitting diode effects on pre-osteoblast growth and differentiation

The acceleration of bone regeneration by low-intensity laser irradiation may hold potential benefits in clinical therapy in orthopedics and dentistry. The purpose of this study is to compare the effects of light-emitting diode (LED) and laser on pre-osteoblast MC3T3 proliferation and differentiation. Cells were irradiated with red, infrared, and LED (3 and 5 J/cm(2)). Lasers had a power density of 1 W/cm(2) and irradiation time of 2 and 5 s. LED had a power density of 60 mW/cm(2) and irradiation time of 50 and 83 s. Control group did not receive irradiation. Cell growth was assessed by a colorimetric test (MTT) (24, 48, 72, and 96 h), and cell differentiation was evaluated by alkaline phosphatase (ALP) quantification after growth in osteogenic medium (72 and 96 h and 7 and 14 days). At 24 h, the cell growth was enhanced 3.6 times by LED (5 J/cm(2)), 6.8 times by red laser (3 J/cm(2)), and 10.1 times by red laser (5 J/cm(2)) in relation to control group (p < 0.05). At the other periods, there was no influence of irradiation on cell growth (p > 0.05). The production of ALP was not influenced by irradiation at any period of time (p > 0.05). Low-intensity laser and LED have similar effects on stimulation of cell growth, but no effect on cell differentiation.

Effect of low-level laser therapy on proliferation, differentiation, and adhesion of steroid-treated osteoblasts

There has recently been constant effort to evaluate therapies that may have a positive effect on bone regeneration. However, there are few studies in the literature on the effects of low-level laser therapy (LLLT) involving tissues treated with anabolic steroids. The present study evaluated the effects of LLLT (AsGaAl 780 nm, 3 J/cm(2), 10 mW, beam spot of 0.04 cm(2), total energy 0.12 J) on the proliferation, adhesion, and differentiation of osteoblasts cultured in the presence of nandrolone decanoate (ND). The MTT method was employed to evaluate cell proliferation and adhesion. Cell differentiation was evaluated by measuring alkaline phosphatase activity. There was a significant decrease in cell proliferation in the irradiated group treated with 50 μM ND when compared to the control group, after 48 h. After 72 h, cell proliferation was significantly greater in the control group than in the irradiated groups treated with the steroid at concentrations of 10, 25, and 50 μM. With regard to cell differentiation, alkaline phosphatase activity was significantly higher in the irradiated group treated with 50 μM ND than in the control group, irradiated non-treated group, and irradiated group treated with 25 μM ND. After 60 min of plating, the irradiated non-treated group and irradiated groups treated with the steroid at concentrations of 5, 10, and 25 μM exhibited a significant increase in cell adhesion compared to the control group. LLLT in combination with a high concentration of steroid inhibited cell proliferation, possibly by inducing cell differentiation, while irradiation combined with lower concentrations of the steroid induced an increase in cell adhesion.

The nuts and bolts of low-level laser (light) therapy

Soon after the discovery of lasers in the 1960s it was realized that laser therapy had the potential to improve wound healing and reduce pain, inflammation and swelling. In recent years the field sometimes known as photobiomodulation has broadened to include light-emitting diodes and other light sources, and the range of wavelengths used now includes many in the red and near infrared. The term "low level laser therapy" or LLLT has become widely recognized and implies the existence of the biphasic dose response or the Arndt-Schulz curve. This review will cover the mechanisms of action of LLLT at a cellular and at a tissular level and will summarize the various light sources and principles of dosimetry that are employed in clinical practice. The range of diseases, injuries, and conditions that can be benefited by LLLT will be summarized with an emphasis on those that have reported randomized controlled clinical trials. Serious life-threatening diseases such as stroke, heart attack, spinal cord injury, and traumatic brain injury may soon be amenable to LLLT therapy.

The nuts and bolts of low-level laser (light) therapy

Soon after the discovery of lasers in the 1960s it was realized that laser therapy had the potential to improve wound healing and reduce pain, inflammation and swelling. In recent years the field sometimes known as photobiomodulation has broadened to include light-emitting diodes and other light sources, and the range of wavelengths used now includes many in the red and near infrared. The term "low level laser therapy" or LLLT has become widely recognized and implies the existence of the biphasic dose response or the Arndt-Schulz curve. This review will cover the mechanisms of action of LLLT at a cellular and at a tissular level and will summarize the various light sources and principles of dosimetry that are employed in clinical practice. The range of diseases, injuries, and conditions that can be benefited by LLLT will be summarized with an emphasis on those that have reported randomized controlled clinical trials. Serious life-threatening diseases such as stroke, heart attack, spinal cord injury, and traumatic brain injury may soon be amenable to LLLT therapy.