Effects of 630-, 660-, 810-, and 905-nm Laser Irradiation Delivering Radiant Exposure of 1-50 J/cm <sup>2</sup> on Three Species of Bacteria <i>in Vitro</i>
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the effects of low-intensity laser therapy (LILT) on bacterial growth in vitro. BACKGROUND DATA: LILT is undergoing investigation as a treatment for accelerating healing of open wounds. The potential of coincident effects on wound bacteria has received little attention. Increased bacterial proliferation could further delay recovery; conversely inhibition could be beneficial. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Escherichia coli, and Staphylococcus aureus were plated on agar and then irradiated with wavelengths of 630, 660, 810, and 905 nm (0.015 W/cm(2)) and radiant exposures of 1-50 J/cm(2). In addition, E. coli was irradiated with 810 nm at an irradiance of 0.03 W/cm(2) (1-50 J/cm(2)). Cells were counted after 20 h of incubation post LILT. Repeated measures ANOVA and Tukey adjusted post hoc tests were used for analysis. RESULTS: There were interactions between wavelength and species (p = 0.0001) and between wavelength and radiant exposure (p = 0.007) in the overall effects on bacterial growth; therefore, individual wavelengths were analyzed. Over all types of bacteria, there were overall growth effects using 810- and 630-nm lasers, with species differences at 630 nm. Effects occurred at low radiant exposures (1-20 J/cm(2)). Overall effects were marginal using 660 nm and negative at 905 nm. Inhibition of P. aeruginosa followed irradiation using 810 nm at 5 J/cm(2) (-23%; p = 0.02). Irradiation using 630 nm at 1 J/cm(2) inhibited P. aeruginosa and E. coli (-27%). Irradiation using 810 nm (0.015 W/cm(2)) increased E. coli growth, but with increased irradiance (0.03 W/cm(2)) the growth was significant (p = 0.04), reaching 30% at 20 J/cm(2) (p = 0.01). S. aureus growth increased 27% following 905-nm irradiation at 50 J/cm(2). CONCLUSION: LILT applied to wounds, delivering commonly used wavelengths and radiant exposures in the range of 1-20 J/cm(2), could produce changes in bacterial growth of considerable importance for wound healing. A wavelength of 630 nm appeared to be most commonly associated with bacterial inhibition. The findings of this study might be useful as a basis for selecting LILT for infected wounds.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".