• Journal of Dental Rehabilitation and Applied Science
• /
• v.33 no.2
• /
• pp.119-126
• /
• 2017

Purpose: The aim of the present study was to compare clinical antiplaque and antigingivitis effect between Light Emitting Diode (LED) electronic toothbrush and electronic toothbrush without LED for gingivitis and mild periodontitis patients. Materials and Methods: 30 patients included in this study. 15 patients in experimental group used LED electronic tooth brush which has red and white LED within its head, and other 15 patients in control group used same product which specially modified that function without LED. Clinical parameters ($L{\ddot{o}}e-Silness$ gingival index (GI), Quigley-Hein plaque index (PI)) were measured at the baseline, 2 weeks and 4 weeks later. Wilcoxon signed rank test and Mann-Whitney test were used for statistical analysis. Results: Compare of GI change between experimental and control group with time, both groups showed that reduced GI, but lower GI values detected at 2 weeks and 4 weeks later in experimental group than control group. And lower PI values detected at 4 weeks later in experimental group than control group, but not statistically significant. Conclusion: Based on these results and within the limits of this study, the electronic toothbrush with LED could reducing gingivitis in a short period and infer that decreasing plaque accumulation in a long period.

• Journal of Periodontal and Implant Science
• /
• v.53 no.2
• /
• pp.120-134
• /
• 2023

Purpose: We investigated whether repeated irradiation with light-emitting diodes (LEDs) at a combination of 470 nm and 525 nm could suppress the progression of experimental periodontitis. Methods: A experimental periodontitis model was established in the second, third, and fourth premolars of the mandible in beagle dogs for 2 months. The spontaneous progression of periodontitis was monitored under the specified treatment regimen for 3 months. During this period, the animals were subjected to treatments of either plaque control only (control) or plaque control with LED application (test) at 2-week intervals. The clinical parameters included the probing pocket depth (PPD), gingival recession (GR), and the clinical attachment level (CAL). Histomorphometric analysis was performed using measurements of the length of the junctional epithelium, connective tissue (CT) zone, and total soft tissue (ST). Results: There were significant differences in PPD between the control and test groups at baseline and 12 weeks. When the change in PPD was stratified based on time intervals, it was shown that greater differences occurred in the test group, with statistical significance for baseline to 12 weeks, 6 to 12 weeks, and baseline to 6 weeks. There was no significant difference in GR between the control and test groups at any time points. Likewise, no statistically significant differences were found in GR at any time intervals. CAL showed a statistically significant difference between the control and test groups at baseline only, although significant differences in CAL were observed between baseline and 12 weeks and between 6 and 12 weeks. The proportion of CT to ST was smaller for both buccal and lingual areas in the control group than in the test group. Conclusions: Repeated LED irradiation with a combination of 470-nm and 525-nm wavelengths may help suppress the progression of periodontal disease.