FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2068777972> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2068777972 endingPage "773" @default.
• W2068777972 startingPage "764" @default.
• W2068777972 abstract "Objective The aim of this preliminary study was to compare wound healing of rat oral tissues after surgical procedure with diode laser or scalpel. Healing was evaluated histologically, immunohistochemically, and by measurement of 2 nitric oxide synthase isoforms (eNOS and iNOS) as intracellular messenger molecules with important immune functions. The instruments were also evaluated for performance and ease of use. Study design Twenty-four standardized incisions were performed in the hard palate of 12 male Wistar rats. Each rat received 2 incisions on the opposite sides of the palate by using a steel scalpel (control group) and a diode laser (808 nm) at a power output of 4 W and 6 W (test group). Histological and immunohistochemical analyses were performed on tissue samples after 7 and 14 days. The expression of eNOS and iNOS was confirmed by RT-PCR (reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction) and Western blot analysis. Results Scalpel repair was found to be equivalent to or better than laser repair at the intervals measured. Histological analysis showed that incision wound repair after laser surgical procedure was related to parameters and beam characteristics. Diode laser at a power output of 6 W showed the worst results of tissue repair, especially after 7 days. On the contrary, the extent of epithelial damage lateral to the wound edge and the extent of collagen denaturation were near equal with scalpel incision and laser irradiation at 4 W after 14 days. Biochemical analysis of RT-PCR and Western blots also confirmed histological results with a greater concentration of eNOS and iNOS after 7 days of laser surgical procedure. Conclusions Clinical and histological findings change over time for different treatments. Diode laser tends to produce more pronounced changes than conventional scalpel surgical procedure (due to tissue thermal damage), with corresponding greater inflammatory reaction and delay in tissue organization only at the initial stage. Thus, long-term histology is critical for predicting treatment results. The clinical use of low-level diode laser for tissue welding of oral mucosa should be investigated further, since it appears to be a good alternative to scalpel incision and suture repair. The aim of this preliminary study was to compare wound healing of rat oral tissues after surgical procedure with diode laser or scalpel. Healing was evaluated histologically, immunohistochemically, and by measurement of 2 nitric oxide synthase isoforms (eNOS and iNOS) as intracellular messenger molecules with important immune functions. The instruments were also evaluated for performance and ease of use. Twenty-four standardized incisions were performed in the hard palate of 12 male Wistar rats. Each rat received 2 incisions on the opposite sides of the palate by using a steel scalpel (control group) and a diode laser (808 nm) at a power output of 4 W and 6 W (test group). Histological and immunohistochemical analyses were performed on tissue samples after 7 and 14 days. The expression of eNOS and iNOS was confirmed by RT-PCR (reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction) and Western blot analysis. Scalpel repair was found to be equivalent to or better than laser repair at the intervals measured. Histological analysis showed that incision wound repair after laser surgical procedure was related to parameters and beam characteristics. Diode laser at a power output of 6 W showed the worst results of tissue repair, especially after 7 days. On the contrary, the extent of epithelial damage lateral to the wound edge and the extent of collagen denaturation were near equal with scalpel incision and laser irradiation at 4 W after 14 days. Biochemical analysis of RT-PCR and Western blots also confirmed histological results with a greater concentration of eNOS and iNOS after 7 days of laser surgical procedure. Clinical and histological findings change over time for different treatments. Diode laser tends to produce more pronounced changes than conventional scalpel surgical procedure (due to tissue thermal damage), with corresponding greater inflammatory reaction and delay in tissue organization only at the initial stage. Thus, long-term histology is critical for predicting treatment results. The clinical use of low-level diode laser for tissue welding of oral mucosa should be investigated further, since it appears to be a good alternative to scalpel incision and suture repair." @default.
• W2068777972 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2068777972 creator A5022709527 @default.
• W2068777972 creator A5028650947 @default.
• W2068777972 creator A5038627608 @default.
• W2068777972 creator A5038731766 @default.
• W2068777972 creator A5050694425 @default.
• W2068777972 creator A5067919739 @default.
• W2068777972 date "2007-06-01" @default.
• W2068777972 modified "2023-10-03" @default.
• W2068777972 title "A preliminary study of healing of diode laser versus scalpel incisions in rat oral tissue: a comparison of clinical, histological, and immunohistochemical results" @default.
• W2068777972 cites W1158407255 @default.
• W2068777972 cites W1187307128 @default.
• W2068777972 cites W1440509671 @default.
• W2068777972 cites W1834041853 @default.
• W2068777972 cites W1965854718 @default.
• W2068777972 cites W1966322594 @default.
• W2068777972 cites W1967355814 @default.
• W2068777972 cites W1969792341 @default.
• W2068777972 cites W1974233025 @default.
• W2068777972 cites W1981293643 @default.
• W2068777972 cites W1981881896 @default.
• W2068777972 cites W1984125328 @default.
• W2068777972 cites W1994317328 @default.
• W2068777972 cites W1997007234 @default.
• W2068777972 cites W1997407909 @default.
• W2068777972 cites W2004773897 @default.
• W2068777972 cites W2010662690 @default.
• W2068777972 cites W2013504300 @default.
• W2068777972 cites W2013591538 @default.
• W2068777972 cites W2019074199 @default.
• W2068777972 cites W2026404392 @default.
• W2068777972 cites W2028453770 @default.
• W2068777972 cites W2038108613 @default.
• W2068777972 cites W2042491997 @default.
• W2068777972 cites W2045809449 @default.
• W2068777972 cites W2049555299 @default.
• W2068777972 cites W2066148795 @default.
• W2068777972 cites W2076950376 @default.
• W2068777972 cites W2086021820 @default.
• W2068777972 cites W2086034993 @default.
• W2068777972 cites W2089796673 @default.
• W2068777972 cites W2092804579 @default.
• W2068777972 cites W2097435560 @default.
• W2068777972 cites W2120255299 @default.
• W2068777972 cites W2133220560 @default.
• W2068777972 cites W2137838799 @default.
• W2068777972 cites W2142503099 @default.
• W2068777972 cites W2154288952 @default.
• W2068777972 cites W2181012382 @default.
• W2068777972 cites W2522561091 @default.
• W2068777972 cites W4246776891 @default.
• W2068777972 cites W4320995287 @default.
• W2068777972 doi "https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tripleo.2006.08.002" @default.
• W2068777972 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17095269" @default.
• W2068777972 hasPublicationYear "2007" @default.
• W2068777972 type Work @default.
• W2068777972 sameAs 2068777972 @default.
• W2068777972 citedByCount "87" @default.
• W2068777972 countsByYear W20687779722012 @default.
• W2068777972 countsByYear W20687779722013 @default.
• W2068777972 countsByYear W20687779722014 @default.
• W2068777972 countsByYear W20687779722015 @default.
• W2068777972 countsByYear W20687779722016 @default.
• W2068777972 countsByYear W20687779722017 @default.
• W2068777972 countsByYear W20687779722018 @default.
• W2068777972 countsByYear W20687779722019 @default.
• W2068777972 countsByYear W20687779722020 @default.
• W2068777972 countsByYear W20687779722021 @default.
• W2068777972 countsByYear W20687779722022 @default.
• W2068777972 countsByYear W20687779722023 @default.
• W2068777972 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2068777972 hasAuthorship W2068777972A5022709527 @default.
• W2068777972 hasAuthorship W2068777972A5028650947 @default.
• W2068777972 hasAuthorship W2068777972A5038627608 @default.
• W2068777972 hasAuthorship W2068777972A5038731766 @default.
• W2068777972 hasAuthorship W2068777972A5050694425 @default.
• W2068777972 hasAuthorship W2068777972A5067919739 @default.
• W2068777972 hasConcept C104317684 @default.
• W2068777972 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W2068777972 hasConcept C141071460 @default.
• W2068777972 hasConcept C142724271 @default.
• W2068777972 hasConcept C204232928 @default.
• W2068777972 hasConcept C2777622882 @default.
• W2068777972 hasConcept C2778326061 @default.
• W2068777972 hasConcept C2780269544 @default.
• W2068777972 hasConcept C519581460 @default.
• W2068777972 hasConcept C55493867 @default.
• W2068777972 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2068777972 hasConcept C85265743 @default.
• W2068777972 hasConcept C86803240 @default.
• W2068777972 hasConceptScore W2068777972C104317684 @default.
• W2068777972 hasConceptScore W2068777972C126322002 @default.
• W2068777972 hasConceptScore W2068777972C141071460 @default.
• W2068777972 hasConceptScore W2068777972C142724271 @default.
• W2068777972 hasConceptScore W2068777972C204232928 @default.
• W2068777972 hasConceptScore W2068777972C2777622882 @default.
• W2068777972 hasConceptScore W2068777972C2778326061 @default.

• next