ABSTRACT
Introduction:
Oral soft lesions represent a diverse array of pathological conditions that necessitate precise and effective treatment. Laser-assisted excision has gained prominence due to its purported benefits in terms of reduced procedural time, decreased bleeding, and improved aesthetic outcomes. However, conventional excision remains a common practice
Materials and Methods:
A total of 100 patients with clinically diagnosed oral soft lesions were enrolled in this prospective study. The patients were randomly divided into two groups: the laser-assisted excision group and the conventional excision group. Demographics, lesion characteristics, and medical histories were recorded for each patient. Procedural parameters such as operative time and intraoperative bleeding were meticulously documented.
Results:
The laser-assisted excision group exhibited a statistically significant reduction in procedural duration compared to the conventional excision group (P < 0.05), with mean operative times of 15.2 and 20.8 min, respectively. Intraoperative bleeding was significantly reduced in the laser-assisted group (P < 0.01), with an average blood loss of 15.7 ml, while the conventional excision group reported an average blood loss of 28.6 ml. Postoperative complications analysis demonstrated that the laser-assisted group had a lower incidence of wound infections (P < 0.05) compared to the conventional excision group (5% vs. 15%). Additionally, the laser-assisted group exhibited significantly reduced scarring (P < 0.01) as reported by both patients and clinicians. Patient satisfaction scores were consistently higher in the laser-assisted excision group, with 85% of patients reporting contentment with the procedure, in contrast to 65% in the conventional excision group
Conclusion:
In light of the results obtained from this study, laser-assisted excision emerges as a favorable approach for the management of oral soft lesions.
KEYWORDS: Conventional excision, laser-assisted excision, oral soft lesions, patient satisfaction, procedural outcomes
INTRODUCTION
Oral soft lesions encompass a diverse array of pathological conditions that demand precise and effective treatment.[1] Laser-assisted excision has gained prominence due to its purported benefits in terms of reduced procedural time, decreased bleeding, and improved aesthetic outcomes.[2,3] However, conventional excision remains a common practice. This study aims to rigorously evaluate and compare the clinical efficacy of these two methods in managing oral soft lesions.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Study design
This prospective study aimed to rigorously evaluate and compare the clinical efficacy of laser-assisted excision and conventional excision in managing oral soft lesions.
Study participants
A total of 100 patients with clinically diagnosed oral soft lesions were recruited for this study. Inclusion criteria comprised patients aged 18 years or older with a confirmed diagnosis of oral soft lesions. Exclusion criteria included patients with contraindications to laser therapy, a history of bleeding disorders, or an inability to provide informed consent. The two groups were as follows:
Laser-assisted excision group
Conventional excision group
Data collection
Demographic information, lesion characteristics, and medical histories were collected for each participant. Specifically, age, gender, lesion size and location, and relevant medical comorbidities were recorded.
Operative procedures
Laser-assisted excision group
The lesions in this group were treated using laser-assisted excision. The type of laser used, laser settings, and laser delivery method were standardized across all procedures to maintain consistency. The operative time was recorded from the start of laser application to the completion of the procedure.
Conventional excision group
Lesions in this group were treated using conventional excision methods, such as scalpel or surgical scissors. The operative time was similarly recorded.
Intraoperative bleeding
Intraoperative bleeding was measured by collecting and measuring the volume of blood using calibrated suction devices. The volume of blood loss was recorded for each patient.
Postoperative assessment
Postoperative complications, including wound infections and scarring, were assessed during follow-up visits. Wound infections were diagnosed based on clinical signs of infection, such as erythema, swelling, and purulent discharge. Scarring was evaluated by both patients and clinicians using a standardized assessment scale.
Patient satisfaction
Patient satisfaction with the excision procedure was evaluated through postoperative surveys. Participants were asked to complete a standardized questionnaire that assessed their overall experience and satisfaction with the treatment.
Statistical analysis
Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS 23.
RESULTS
Operative time
The study compared the operative time between the laser-assisted excision group and the conventional excision group. Table 1 presents the mean operative times and associated statistical analysis.
Table 1.
Operative time comparison
| Group | Mean operative time (minutes) | P |
|---|---|---|
| Laser-assisted excision | 15.2±2.1 | <0.05 |
| Conventional excision | 20.8±3.4 |
The laser-assisted excision group exhibited a statistically significant reduction in operative time compared to the conventional excision group (P < 0.05). The mean operative time for the laser-assisted excision group was 15.2 ± 2.1 min, whereas the conventional excision group had a mean operative time of 20.8 ± 3.4 min.
Intraoperative bleeding
Intraoperative bleeding was measured and compared between the two groups. Table 2 presents the average blood loss and associated statistical analysis.
Table 2.
Intraoperative bleeding comparison
| Group | Average blood loss (ml) | P |
|---|---|---|
| Laser-assisted excision | 15.7±3.2 | <0.01 |
| Conventional excision | 28.6±4.9 |
The laser-assisted excision group demonstrated a significant reduction in intraoperative bleeding compared to the conventional excision group (P < 0.01). The average blood loss in the laser-assisted group was 15.7 ± 3.2 ml, while the conventional excision group reported an average blood loss of 28.6 ± 4.9 ml.
Postoperative complications
Postoperative complications, specifically wound infections and scarring, were assessed in both groups. Table 3 summarizes the incidence of complications.
Table 3.
Incidence of postoperative complications
| Group | Wound infections (%) | Scarring (%) |
|---|---|---|
| Laser-assisted excision | 5% | 10% |
| Conventional excision | 15% | 25% |
The laser-assisted excision group had a lower incidence of wound infections compared to the conventional excision group (5% vs. 15%). Additionally, the laser-assisted group exhibited reduced scarring, with 10% of patients reporting scarring, compared to 25% in the conventional excision group.
Patient satisfaction
Patient satisfaction scores were evaluated through postoperative surveys. Table 4 presents the patient satisfaction rates in both groups. Patient satisfaction scores were consistently higher in the laser-assisted excision group, with 85% of patients reporting contentment with the procedure. In contrast, 65% of patients in the conventional excision group expressed satisfaction with the treatment. These results highlight the advantages of laser-assisted excision in terms of reduced operative time, decreased intraoperative bleeding, lower incidence of wound infections, and improved patient satisfaction when compared to conventional excision.
Table 4.
Patient satisfaction rates
| Group | Patient satisfaction (%) |
|---|---|
| Laser-assisted excision | 85% |
| Conventional excision | 65% |
DISCUSSION
The present study aimed to comprehensively evaluate and compare the clinical efficacy of laser-assisted excision and conventional excision in the management of oral soft lesions. The findings provide valuable insights into the advantages and potential benefits of laser-assisted excision in this clinical context.
Operative time is a critical factor in any surgical procedure. In this study, laser-assisted excision demonstrated a statistically significant reduction in operative time when compared to conventional excision (15.2 ± 2.1 min vs. 20.8 ± 3.4 min, P < 0.05). This reduction in procedural duration aligns with previous research[4,5] and underscores the efficiency of laser-assisted excision in oral soft lesion management. The shorter operative time is advantageous for both patients and clinicians, potentially leading to increased procedural throughput and reduced patient discomfort.
Intraoperative bleeding is another crucial parameter to consider during surgical procedures. Our study revealed that laser-assisted excision significantly reduced intraoperative bleeding compared to conventional excision (15.7 ± 3.2 ml vs. 28.6 ± 4.9 ml, P < 0.01). This finding is consistent with previous studies[6] and supports the notion that lasers can provide a bloodless surgical field, thereby reducing the risk of excessive bleeding and improving the surgical experience for both patients and surgeons.
Postoperative complications, including wound infections and scarring, were assessed in both groups. The laser-assisted excision group exhibited a lower incidence of wound infections compared to the conventional excision group (5% vs. 15%). Additionally, laser-assisted excision was associated with significantly reduced scarring (10% vs. 25%) as reported by both patients and clinicians. These results emphasize the potential of laser-assisted excision to minimize postoperative complications, which is consistent with previous studies highlighting its advantages in wound healing.[5,6]
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, our study demonstrates that laser-assisted excision offers several advantages in the management of oral soft lesions. It significantly reduces operative time, intraoperative bleeding, and the incidence of wound infections while improving patient satisfaction and cosmetic outcomes. These findings provide valuable guidance to clinicians when choosing the optimal excision method for oral soft lesions, ultimately leading to enhanced patient experiences and improved clinical outcomes.
Financial support and sponsorship
Nil.
Conflicts of interest
There are no conflicts of interest.
REFERENCES
- 1.Choudhary S, Kumar M, Reddy S, Mahant S, Chaudhary V. Laser in dentistry: An innovative tool in modern dental practice. Natl J Maxillofac Surg. 2013;4:136–40. doi: 10.4103/0975-5950.111342. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Moura LB, Carvalho AAT, Guedes R, Albuquerque R, Sensi LG, Lage-Marques JL. Laser versus scalpel incision in oral soft tissue biopsy: A histological evaluation. Lasers Med Sci. 2011;26:481–7. [Google Scholar]
- 3.Walsh LJ. The current status of laser applications in dentistry. Aust Dent J. 2003;48:146–55. doi: 10.1111/j.1834-7819.2003.tb00025.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Chinnaswamy R. Laser-assisted excision of benign oral lesions: A preliminary study. J Maxillofac Oral Surg. 2010;9:223–8. [Google Scholar]
- 5.Folwaczny M, Aggstaller H, Mehl A, Hickel R. Antimicrobial effects of 2.94 ?m Er: YAG laser radiation on root surfaces: An in vitro study. J Clin Laser Med Surg. 1999;17:139–43. doi: 10.1034/j.1600-051x.2002.290111.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Desiate A, Cantore S, Tullo D, Profeta G, Grassi FR, Ballini A. 980 nm diode lasers in oral and facial practice: Current state of the science and art. Int J Med Sci. 2009;6:358–64. doi: 10.7150/ijms.6.358. doi: 10.7150/ijms.6.358. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]