LED versus Laser
An interesting review on human studies with near-infrared laser light therapy for wound healing was published by Conlan et al. in 1996(1) Lasers, however, have some inherent characteristics that make their use in a clinical setting problematic. Limitations include beam width, high cost, fragility and safety requisites. The size of wounds that may be treated is limited, heat production from the laser itself can damage tissue and the pinpoint beam of laser light can damage the eye.
Specifications |
Laser Devices |
LED Devices |
Laser diode |
YES |
|
Light Emitting diode |
|
YES |
Collimated beam |
YES |
|
Non-collimated beam |
|
YES |
Monochromatic beam / single wavelength beam |
YES |
YES |
High Capital layout |
YES |
|
Diode/bulb lifetime |
1000-2000 hrs |
50000 hrs+ |
Cellular bio-stimulus effect |
YES |
YES |
Recent advances in the field of photon therapy have shown that the bio-stimulatory effects achieved are not due to the type of photon emitting device being used, but by the wavelength of the emitted photons (light particles).
LED-based light therapy devices offer an effective alternative to lasers. The diodes can be configured to produce single or multiple wavelengths, generating a more diffuse light allowing for the treatment of larger areas during the procedure. The new generation light devices are less fragile, light-weight, produce virtually no heat and have a greater treatment coverage area. More importantly, LED light therapy has been deemed a non-significant risk thus approval has been obtained from the FDA for the use of LEDs in humans for light therapy(2).
Call Us Now 01327 310909