ArticleLasers in medical science2025
Evaluation of cutting accuracy and thermal damage in oral soft tissue using different surgical techniques.
Article in Lasers in medical science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
To evaluate the cutting accuracy and thermal damage in oral soft tissue using different cutting techniques. Sixty specimens of sheep oral mucosa tissue, with the dimensions of 2.0 cm in length and 1.5 cm in width were prepared and divided into six groups (n = 10) representing different cutting technique. Incisions were made by sectioning each specimen using the 2000 nm continuous-wave (CW) silica based thulium-doped fibre (TDF) laser (Group A), the 1550 nm CW silica based Erbium/Ytterbium-doped fibre (EYDF) laser (Group B), electrosurgery (Group C), 980 nm diode laser (Group D), 2000 nm ultrashort-pulsed (USP) silica based TDF laser (Group E), and the scalpel (Group F or control group). Each specimen was measured for average roughness value (Ra) and thermal damage, reported as mean and standard deviation. A one-way ANOVA with post-hoc Tukey's HSD test was performed to determine significant differences among six groups, with a significance level set at p < 0.05. Among the energy-based groups, the 2000 nm USP silica based TDF laser (Group E) exhibited the lowest Ra (1.22 ± 0.71 μm) and minimal thermal damage (9.85 ± 4.01%). In contrast, the highest Ra (4.82 ± 1.36 μm) was observed in the electrosurgery (Group C), while the highest thermal damage (16.73 ± 4.57%) was recorded in the 1550 nm CW silica based EYDF laser (Group B). One-way ANOVA revealed statistically significant differences among the groups in both average roughness (F = 45.45, p < 0.001) and thermal damage (F = 11.84, p < 0.001). The findings suggest that the 2000 nm USP silica based TDF laser offers superior cutting accuracy with minimal impact of thermal damage, supporting its potential adoption into clinical protocols for oral soft tissue surgery.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41449225What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.