Response to Letter to the Editor: “The Laser Wound Healing Contradiction”

Dear Editor:

Iappreciate the views and considerations presented by Dr. Tunér. ¹ We cannot change what was written in the original article. The information was presented as it was cited by the authors of each article. We conducted a comprehensive review but not a meta-analysis.

For example, with regard to the “laser GmbH,” these studies used more than one type of laser; therefore, authors would have been cited as having used lasers. Regarding the author's remarks related to the use of “InGaAlP laser,” this comment was made in reference to the following paragraph:

A total of 557 articles were found, of which 31 were selected (n=28 in rats or mice and n=3 in humans). Seven different lasers were used by the authors in the studies: GaAlAs (aluminum gallium arsenide), InGaAlp (phosphide indium-gallium-arsenic), GnbH, HeNe (helium neon), GaAs (gallium arsenide), InGasAs (indium gallium arsenide), and GaAlInP (phosphide indium-gallium-aluminum). The GaAlAs laser was used more often, by 11 authors, all of whom used an animal model. Twenty-five studies were conducted in rats and three were conducted in mice, and the main results were described and summarized in Tables 1–7. The three studies in humans used the lasers InGasAs and InGaAlP, being the main results of the effect of the laser on the healing process of skin lesions described and summarized in Table 8.

The above parameters were cited as they were described in these articles referenced. Because of the large differences in the protocols used, we separated items by type of laser used, in an attempt to make the research easy to understand.