Pain Reduction Using Low Level Laser Irradiation in Single-Visit Endodontic Treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Post-endodontic treatment pain is a relatively common condition which needs analgesics for patient’s pain relief. Low-level laser therapy (LLLT) is suggested as a non-pharmacological and non-invasive treatment for dealing with painful conditions. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the pain relief effect of LLLT after endodontic treatment.METHODS: Eighty patients randomly received either LLLT (n=40), or placebo laser (n=40) after the completion of endodontic treatment for their first permanent upper or lower molars. In the laser group, the patients received a single course of low level laser therapy (Whitening Lase II- Laser DMC, Samsung, Korea) for 80 second (a dose = 70 j/cm²) per tooth. Intensity of post treatment pain was recorded using a questionnaire (The McGill Pain Questionnaire) and a numeric rating scale (Visual Analogue Scale {VAS}) at 4, 8, 12, 24, and 48 hours. VAS is a 10 cm line with “no pain” at one end, and “worst pain imaginable” at the other end. This method makes it possible to quantify pain levels. T-test and Chi-square test were used for data statistical analyses.RESULTS: Compared to the placebo group, post-endodontic pain was significantly reduced in LLLT group at 4, 8, 12, and 48 hours (P 0.05).CONCLUSION: Regarding the significant pain reduction in LLLT group at 4, 8, 12, and 48 hours after endodontic treatment, LLLT seems to be an effective and nonpharmacological approach for the reduction of post-endodontic treatment pain.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".