FUTURE ARTICLE: Lasers vs. Panels
Studies that show Red Light through Lasers vs LED (Light Emitting Diodes) Panels
LED is better than laser
Comparison Between Single-Diode Low-Level Laser Therapy (LLLT) and LED Multi-Diode (Cluster) Therapy (LEDT) Applications Before High-Intensity Exercise
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19302015/
“This study was designed to compare the effect of single-diode LLLT and cluster LEDT before heavy exercise.”
Studied CK levels and blood lactate levels in 3 groups: control, LLLT, LEDT
Occurred in red light wavelength range (although 660 nm and 850 nm were used for LED and 810 nm was used for laser)
“In this experimental set-up, only the active LEDT probe decreased post-exercise CK levels after the Wingate cycle test. Neither performance nor blood lactate levels were significantly affected by this protocol of pre-exercise LEDT or LLLT.”
CK levels were best for LEDT. No statistically significant difference for LLLT
Comparative Analysis of Coherent Light Action (Laser) Versus Non-Coherent Light (Light-Emitting Diode) for Tissue Repair in Diabetic Rats
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19238507/
Studied laser vs LED in red light for tissue repair in rats
LED was 640 nm, laser was 660 nm
3 groups: control, LED, laser
“For the group composed of diabetic animals, 72 h after creation of the lesion, it was observed that the therapy with LEDs had been more efficient than that with the laser in the reduction of the wounds’ diameters.”
At 168 hours, the lights and LEDs had similar effects on the lesions
The Effect of Two Phototherapy Protocols on Pain Control in Orthodontic Procedure--A Preliminary Clinical Study
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21626017/
Studied pain levels in patients after an orthodontic procedure
4 groups: Control, Placebo, 660 nm laser, 640 nm LED
“The LED group had a significant reduction in pain levels between 2 and 120 h compared to the control and the laser groups. The LED therapy showed a significant reduction in pain sensitivity (an average of 56%), after the orthodontic tooth movement when compared to the control group.”
LED is same as laser
Photobiomodulation: Lasers vs Light Emitting Diodes?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6091542/
“The current total evidence appears to support the idea that photobiomodulation is not dependent on lasers or coherence”
There seems to be no significant difference in the use of lasers vs LEDs in terms of physiological benefits
In fact, if anything, LEDs have some advantages as detailed in the study:
“Advantages of LEDs include no laser safety considerations, ease of home use, ability to irradiate a large area of tissue at once, possibility of wearable devices, and much lower cost per mW. LED photobiomodulation is here to stay.”
Drew conclusions from aggregate data on LEDs vs lasers, red light therapy in general, etc.
A Comparative Study of the Effects of Laser and Light-Emitting Diode Irradiation on the Wound Healing and Functional Activity of Wound Exudate Leukocytes
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16358796/
“We can conclude that coherent laser and non-coherent light-emitting diode radiation have very close effects on wound healing and activity of wound exudate leukocytes, and coherence is not required for this activity.”
Lasers and LEDs are the same
Studied wound healing on rat skin by measuring the functional activity of wound exudate leukocytes
A Comparison of the Effects of Laser and Light-Emitting Diodes on Superoxide Dismutase Activity and Nitric Oxide Production in Rat Wound Fluid
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16521561/
It was shown that (1) exposure of wounds to the visible light of both laser and light-emitting diodes causes dose-dependent changes in superoxide dismutase activity and production of nitrites and (2) the radiation coherence does not play any significant role in the changes of superoxide dismutase activity or nitrogen oxide formation by wound fluid phagocytes
No difference found in LLLT vs LEDT
Studied the activity of superoxide dismutase in rat wound fluid
LEDs and lights were in the red wavelength range
Effect of Laser and LED Phototherapies on the Healing of Cutaneous Wound on Healthy and Iron-Deficient Wistar Rats and Their Impact on Fibroblastic Activity During Wound Healing
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22814898/
Measured fibroblastic activity during wound healing in rats which were healthy and iron deficient
Used 660 nm laser and 700 nm LED
It is concluded that the use of LED light caused a significant positive biomodulation of fibroblastic proliferation on anemic animals and laser was more effective on increasing proliferation on non-anemics.
So LED was good for anemic cells whereas lasers were best for non-anemic cells (thus this study is sort of good and bad)
Effects of low-power light therapy on wound healing: LASER x LED
Studied 68 in-vitro and animal studies regarding wound healing and whether or not laser or LED affected these in a statistically different way
The reviewed studies show that phototherapy, either by LASER or LED, is an effective therapeutic modality to promote healing of skin wounds.
In addition to these effects, the irradiation parameters are also similar between LED and LASER
Importantly, the biological effects are dependent on such parameters, especially wavelength and dose, highlighting the importance of determining an appropriate treatment protocol.
This is big-- it says what’s more important than laser vs LED is protocol
The Comparison of the Efficacy of Blue Light-Emitting Diode Light and 980-nm Low-Level Laser Light on Bone Regeneration
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28005786/
“Blue LED light significantly enhances bone regeneration in critical-sized defects when compared with CL group, but does not have a statistically significant effect on bone regeneration when compared with 980-nm low-level laser light”
This is in the no conclusion section because it is with blue light LED (400-490 nm) and 980 nm laser, despite the LED performing better than the laser
Laser is better than LED
Comparative effectiveness of light emitting diodes (LEDs) and Lasers in near infrared photoimmunotherapy
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4924718/
Studied near-infrared lasers and LEDs on cancer tumors in-vitro cell culture and in-vivo mice
“These results suggest that Laser-light produced significantly more cytotoxic effects compared to LEDs. Although LED is less expensive, Laser-light produces superior results in NIR-PIT.”
Cytotoxicity is good in this case (kills living cancer cells, etc.)
“Laser-light resulted in superior therapeutic effects compared to LED-light in in vivo NIR-PIT at the same light dose in mouse models.”
Only lasers can be used for low level laser therapy
Study compiled publications from 1973 to 2016
“Obviously, LEDs have their niche in a vast field of light therapy, for example, they are very successfully used in photodynamic therapy, UV LEDs have a good bactericidal effect, but to expect clinical effects similar to those obtained precisely in low level laser therapy using laser light (LLLT) from them may be a waste of time.”
Says that LEDs are inefficient an should not be used to replace lasers
Effect of frequent laser irradiation on orthodontic pain.
The pain scores of the laser group were significantly lower than those of the control group up to 1 day. The pain scores in the LED group were not significantly different from those of the laser group during the first 6 hours. After that point, the pain scores of the LED group were not significantly different from those of the control.
Laser was more effective than LED in this study (similar orthodontic pain study above found the opposite
______________________________________________________________________________
This one I can't tell:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5787298/
Good resource of compiled studies here:
https://www.healinglightseminars.com/laser-research-library/laser-and-led-comparison-of-effects/