Table 3.
Mean ± SD of dysesthesia, 2-point discrimination, and patients’ satisfaction
| Variables | Groups (n=13) | Before treatment | 1st Session | 3rd Session | 7th Session | 12th Session |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dysesthesia | Control | 8.00±1.08 | 6.53±1.19 | 5.15±1.51 | 4.30±1.65 | 4.15±1.21 |
| 810 nm laser | 8.00±1.29 | 5.00±1.22 | 3.53±1.12 | 2.53±0.87 | 2.46±1.126 | |
| 940 nm laser | 7.846±1.28 | 6.38±0.86 | 4.53±1.198 | 3.23±1.42 | 2.23±1.48 | |
| Two Point Discrimination | Control | 20.31±5.23 | 18.23±4.64 | 16.15±4.00 | 15.62±3.71 | 14.85±4.08 |
| 810 nm laser | 20.46±5.62 | 16.92±5.25 | 15.46±5.30 | 13.62±4.48 | 12.54±4.12 | |
| 940 nm laser | 21.38±6.92 | 19.00±5.58 | 16.62±6.23 | 15.77±5.92 | 13.62±3.75 | |
| Patient’s satisfaction | Control | - | 5.08±1.04 | 7.00±1.53 | 7.00±2.00 | 6.92±1.93 |
| 810 nm laser | - | 7.23±1.36 | 8.15±1.21 | 8.62±1.19 | 8.85±0.80 | |
| 940 nm laser | - | 4.54±0.78 | 6.15±1.57 | 7.46±1.27 | 8.15±1.46 |
In this table shows the mean ± SD of dysesthesia, 2-point discrimination, and patients’ satisfaction in different sessions. Patients treated with lasers showed less dysesthesia in all sessions. The performance of patients was the variant in different sessions regarding 2-point discrimination. Patients represented more satisfaction after using the 810nm laser in all sessions but using the 940nm laser led to the least satisfaction amongst patients until the 7th session in which the satisfaction showed growth and overtook the control group.