Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesAnimal StudyEurope PMC

Anti-inflammatory, Antioxidant, and Wound-Healing Effects of Photobiomodulation on Type-2 Diabetic Rats

Moheghi A., Noori Mougehi SMH., Amini A., Mostafavinia A., Rezaei F., Bagheri Tadi F.

Animal Study on Type 2 Diabetes, Chronic Wound, Chronic Inflammation, published in J Lasers Med Sci (2023) — summary generated from the PubMed abstract.

Open my reading list
Level D· Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studiesEvidence level of this study

Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.

  • Level A · Stronger Clinical Evidence
  • Level B · Emerging clinical evidence with positive signals
  • Level C · Early human research exploring benefits
  • Level D · Scientific groundwork from lab and animal studies
  • Emerging · Emerging topic under active research
Read the A–D evidence level guide

This page is generated from the PubMed record. The Thai description is an automated summary of bibliographic fields and the abstract, not a full translation, and is not medical advice.

Study type
Animal Study
Journal
J Lasers Med Sci (2023)
Reported sample size
—
Source database
Europe PMC
PMID
38028880
PMCID
PMC10658114
DOI
10.34172/jlms.2023.45
Citations
4

Abstract (original English)

Introduction: In the current study, the effects of photobiomodulation (PBM) treatments were examined based on biomechanical and histological criteria and mRNA levels of catalase (CAT), superoxide dismutase (SOD), and NADPH oxidase (NOX) 1 and 4 in a postponed, ischemic, and infected wound repair model (DIIWHM) in rats with type 2 diabetes (DM2) during the inflammation (day 4) and proliferation (day 8) stages. Methods: To study ischemic wound repair in a diabetic rat model (DIIWHM), 24 rats with type-2 diabetes were randomly divided into four groups and infected with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (MRSA). The control groups consisted of CG4 (control group on day 4) and CG8 (control group on day 8), while the PBM groups comprised PBM 4 (PBM treatment group on day 4) and PBM 8 (PBM treatment group on day 8). These group assignments allowed for comparisons between the control groups and the PBM-treated groups at their respective time points during the study. Results: On days 4 and 8 of wound restoration, the PBM 4 and PBM 8 groups showed substantially modulated inflammatory responses and improved formation of fibroblast tissue compared with the CG groups ( P 8 were significantly superior to those of PBM 4 ( P P 4 and PBM 8 groups compared with both CGgroups ( P Conclusion: PBM treatments significantly sped up the inflammatory and proliferating processes in a DHIIWM in

What this study does not prove

  • • This study does not prove SVF is an approved treatment or a replacement for standard care.
  • • This is preclinical work; animal or laboratory results cannot be applied to humans.

Evidence level

Evidence from laboratory and animal studies provides groundwork for understanding mechanisms and potential before human studies continue.

How we grade evidence

Browse all related research

Filter the research library by this study's title keywords, author, or publication year.

Related research