Table 2.

The frequency and percentage of thermal test detection

Evaluation session	Groups	Non-detected N. (%)	Detection of heat OR cold N. (%)	Detection of heat AND cold N. (%)	Total N. (%)	p Value
Before treatment	Control	2 (15.4)	6 (46.2)	5 (38.5)	13 (100)	0.200
	810 nm laser	6 (46.2)	5 (38.5)	2 (15.4)	13 (100)
	940 nm laser	5 (38.5)	5 (38.5)	3 (23.1)	13 (100)
	Total	13 (33.3)	16 (41)	10 (25.6)	39 (100)
1st session	Control	2 (15.4)	5 (38.5)	6 (46.2)	13 (100)	0.564
	810 nm laser	4 (30.7)	6 (46.2)	3 (23.1)	13 (100)
	940 nm laser	4 (30.7)	4 (30.7)	5 (38.5)	13 (100)
	Total	10 (25.6)	15 (38.5)	14 (35.9)	39 (100)
3rd session	Control	1 (7.7)	6 (46.2)	6 (46.2)	13 (100)	0.230
	810 nm laser	2 (15.4)	8 (61.5)	3 (23.1)	13 (100)
	940 nm laser	0 (0.0)	7 (53.8)	6 (46.2)	13 (100)
	Total	3 (7.7)	21 (53.8)	15 (38.5)	39 (100)
7th session	Control	1 (7.7)	4 (30.8)	8 (61.5)	13 (100)	0.230
	810 nm laser	2 (15.4)	5 (38.5)	6 (46.2)	13 (100)
	940 nm laser	0 (0.0)	4 (30.8)	9 (69.2)	13 (100)
	Total	3 (7.7)	13 (33.3)	23 (59)	39 (100)
12th session	Control	1 (7.7)	2 (15.4)	10 (76.9)	13 (100)	0.230
	810 nm laser	2 (15.4)	2 (15.4)	9 (69.2)	13 (100)
	940 nm laser	0 (0.0)	3 (23.1)	10 (76.9)	13 (100)
	Total	3 (7.7)	7 (17.9)	29 (74.4)	39 (100)

In this table showed the frequency and percentage of thermal test detection. The detection frequency of this test was the variant between the 3 groups. The ability of thermal detection had been improved in all groups until the 3rd session and then remained unchanged until the end of the 12th session. After 3 treatment sessions, almost all patients were able to detect the thermal stimuli and there was no significant difference between the 3 groups regarding non-detection and any detection of the thermal stimuli.