Table 2.
Group 1 | Group 2 | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
After three sessions (n = 39) | After six sessions (n = 35) | After three sessions (n = 40) | After six sessions (n = 32) | |
WBFPS 10 | 0 (0.00%) | 0 (0.00%) | 0 (0.00%) | 0 (0.00%) |
WBFPS 8 | 11 (28.21%) | 2 (5.71%) | 0 (0.00%) | 0 (0.00%) |
WBFPS 6 | 25 (64.10%) | 13 (37.14%) | 20 (50%) | 1 (3.13%) |
WBFPS 4 | 1 (2.56%) | 15 (42.86%) | 19 (47.50%) | 6 (18.75%) |
WBFPS 2 | 1 (2.56%) | 4 (11.43%) | 1 (2.50%) | 23 (71.88%) |
WBFPS 0 | 0 (0.00%) | 1 (2.86%) | 0 (0.00%) | 2 (6.25%) |
After three sessions, majority of patients (approximately 57%) reported score of 6 on WBFPS scale. Approximately one-third patients in group 1 reported scores of 8 and 10, whereas no patient in group 2 had similar scores. This comparison between two groups was found to be statistically significant (P < 0.0001). After six sessions, approximately 72% patients in group 2 versus 11% patients in group 1 reported WBFPS 2. Higher number of patients in was satisfied with combination treatment than single laser treatment on WBFPS score (P < 0.0001)