Oral MucositisPhase 3OMLTPTNCT02555501
Oral Mucositis and Laser Therapy Associated With Photodynamic Therapy
A Phase 3 study testing PDT + Low level laser and Low level laser in people with Oral Mucositis, run by Universidade Ceuma at 1 site in Brazil.
Trial summary
The aim of the study was to evaluate the therapeutic action through the diameter of the lesion, of low level laser (LLL) associated to photodynamic therapy (PDT) in oral mucositis (OM) lesions, in young patients. A randomized clinical trial blinded, split-mouth was performed. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 3 to 18 years
- Conditions the study is for
- Oral Mucositis
- What is being tested?
- PDT + Low level laser and Low level laser
- Type of treatment
- Pill or oral medicine, Surgery or procedure
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 18 participants
- Where
- 1 siteBrazil
- Study dates
- Oct 2014to Sep 2015
- Phase
- Phase 3
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 3 to 18 years
- All sexes
- No healthy volunteers
- Child, Adult
Who may be able to join
- Patients between 3 and 18 years old
- Patients on chemotherapy inductive phase
- Patients with oral mucositis and bilateral lesions
Who cannot join
- Patients outside the established age
- Patients who are in other phases of chemotherapy
- Patients who did not have bilateral lesions
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
About this study
Official title: Laser Therapy Associated With Photodynamic Therapy in the Treatment of Oral Mucositis Induced by Chemotherapy in Young Patients: Randomized Blind Clinical Trial
The aim of the study was to evaluate the therapeutic action through the diameter of the lesion, of low level laser (LLL) associated to photodynamic therapy (PDT) in oral mucositis (OM) lesions, in young patients. A randomized clinical trial blinded, split-mouth was performed. The study sample consisted of 15 cancer patients (3-16 years old) of Aldenora Bello Hospital (São Luís, Maranhão, Brazil). Random allocation by lot of treatments (PDT + LLL and LLL) to quadrants of the oral cavity was performed, and the patient was his own control. Patients were masked about therapy performed on each side of the arch. The evaluation period of both therapeutic regimens was 8 days, and the outcome assessed was the lesion size (measured in cm²). Friedman and Wilcoxon tests were applied and the effect magnitude calculated. The significance level was 5%. Statistically significant difference was observed between the groups for the lesion diameter of the 6th to the 8th day (greater regression of lesion size for the PDT + LLL group), which was confirmed by a difference magnitude moderated. Based on the findings, it is concluded that PDT + LLL showed greater therapeutic effect when compared to LLL in reducing the severity of OM lesions.
Read the detailed description
The blind randomized clinical trial included 18 young patients, between 3 and 16 years old, undergoing chemotherapy or chemo/radiological the pediatric ward of Aldenora Bello Hospital in São Luís (Maranhão, Brazil). The study was conducted from October/2014 to January/2015. It was adopted as inclusion criteria patients between 3 and 18 years old, in the inductive phase of chemotherapy, with oral mucositis (OM) and bilateral lesions.
A mouth split model was conducted, and the patients were their own controls. The entry of the patients in the study occurred consecutively. To each patient, the operator/examiner drafted an envelope containing treatments to either side, being masked patient about the treatment of each side: PDT (photosensitized and low level laser) + low level laser; Low level laser].
The following parameters were used for the calculation of sample size: 95% confidence level, 80% statistical power and minimal difference of 0.82 point in the lesions diameter detected between paired samples. A "n" sample minimum of 14 was determined for each treatment. In order to compensate for possible losses, 18 patients were treated.
The treatments (PDT and low level laser; Low level laser) were performed in a hospital bed. Prior to treatment, the OM lesions were evaluated and a lesion on each side was chosen. Lesions should be located at the same site on both sides. The chosen site was the lip mucosa. Before the procedure, the patient was instructed as to brushing and not using mouthwashes, followed by cleaning of the oral cavity with gauze and distilled water. Two days before the laser treatment, the side of the oral cavity chosen for the experimental treatment (PDT and low level laser) was pigmented with the photosensitizer (aqueous solution of 0.005% methylene blue). A ball of sterile cotton was soaked in the dye solution and placed in the center of the lesion. Photosensitizer remained in the place for 5 minutes (pre-irradiation period). Then, to activate the dye, the lesion was irradiated with red light (InGaAlP / phosphide and Indium, Gallium and potassium) (Flash Laser III, DMC, São Carlos, São Paulo, Brazil), with a wavelength of 660 nm, for a period 90 seconds, with a power of 100mW, to 1cm away, according to the manufacturer's specifications. The lesion on the opposite side was treated with ball of sterile cotton soaked in distilled water and the laser unit placed on the lesion without activation of the light. This procedure aimed to mask the patient about the side that received the experimental therapy (PDT and low level laser). This masking was possible because the experimental solution is insipid, very soluble and thus leaves no residue.
From the 3rd to the 10th day (total of 8 days) was carried out only laser therapy on both sides. Lesions were evaluated until the 8th day. After the 8th day of assessment, the lesions were only treated to a complete remission as well as other lesions present in the oral cavity. For laser therapy was first used infrared emitter laser unit with active medium AsGaAl (Gallium Arsenide and Aluminium), with wavelength of 808nm, for analgesia. Then, the investigators used the red emitter, whose active medium was the InGaAlP (phosphide and Indium, Gallium and Potassium), with wavelength of 660nm to photobiomodulation. For both units emitting laser, the tip of the device was closed against the edges of the lesion, perpendicular to the tissue. A irradiation was continuous and the application punctual (10 seconds). The distance between the points of irradiation was about 1cm. The energy delivered was 4J per point of application. The interval between sessions was 24 hours.
The tip of the laser was disinfected with 70% alcohol solution and wrapped with a plastic film. Patients and operators wore glasses for eye protection.
A questionnaire containing demographic, socioeconomic and type of treatment for cancer was applied to parents and children. White blood cell count and platelets (beginning and end of the inductive phase of QT) were extracted from medical records.
The assessed outcome measure was the diameter of the lesion (in cm2). The areas of the lesions were measured with a flexible ruler (record made in cm2) by the operator/examiner from the start of treatment with exclusive laser therapy (3rd day). This procedure was repeated on subsequent days until the 8th day of laser treatment. The measurement of the lesions occurred prior to laser therapy applications.
The Friedman test was used for multiple comparisons within groups (different times of treatment). Paired evaluation between each two moments was evaluated using the Wilcoxon test, with significance corrected by Bonferroni test (p = 0.0071). The Wilcoxon test was used to compare the diameter of the lesion, every day, between the PDT + Low level laser and Low level laser groups (dependent samples/split-mouth). It calculated the effect magnitude (d) of standardized differences between averages of two groups. The level of significance for analysis was 5%.
- Conditions
- Oral Mucositis
- Being tested
- PDT + Low level laser, Low level laser
- Keywords
- children, cancer, stomatitis, clinical trial, laser therapy, low-level, methylene blue, photochemotherapy
- Medical subject headings
- Stomatitis, Neoplasms
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
PDT + Low level laserOther
Two days before the laser treatment, the side of the oral cavity chosen for the experimental treatment was pigmented with aqueous solution of 0.005% methylene blue. A ball of sterile cotton was soaked in the dye solution and placed in the center of the lesion. Photosensitizer remained in the place for 5 minutes (pre-irradiation period). Then, to activate the dye, the lesion was irradiated with red light (InGaAlP / phosphide and Indium, Gallium and potassium).
From the 3rd to the 10th day was carried out only laser therapy. For laser therapy was first used infrared emitter laser unit with active medium AsGaAl (Gallium Arsenide and Aluminium). Then, we used the red emitter, whose active medium was the InGaAlP (phosphide and Indium, Gallium and Potassium).
Low level laserRadiation
Two days before the laser treatment, the lesion of the side of the oral cavity chosen for the control treatment was treated with ball of sterile cotton soaked in distilled water and the laser unit placed on the lesion without activation of the light. From the 3rd to the 10th day was carried out laser therapy. For laser therapy was first used infrared emitter laser unit with active medium AsGaAl (Gallium Arsenide and Aluminium). Then, we used the red emitter, whose active medium was the InGaAlP (phosphide and Indium, Gallium and Potassium).
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| PDT + Low level laser | Experimental | PDT (photosensitizer and low level laser) and low level laser
Photosensitizer: aqueous solution of 0.005% methylene blue; Low level laser: infrared emitter laser unit with active medium AsGaAl (Gallium Arsenide and Aluminium) and red emitter with active medium InGaAlP (phosphide and Indium, Gallium and Potassium) Receives: Other: PDT + Low level laser |
| Low level laser | Active comparator | Low level laser: infrared emitter laser unit with active medium AsGaAl (Gallium Arsenide and Aluminium) and red emitter with active medium InGaAlP (phosphide and Indium, Gallium and Potassium) Receives: Radiation: Low level laser |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Lesion size
Lesion size measured in cm²
Measured: 8 days
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted21 Sep 2015 (estimated)
- Study startOct 2014
- Primary completionSep 2015
- Study completionSep 2015
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (36)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Oral MucositisStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase 3
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind
- Who is masked
- Participant
- Enrolment
- 18 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Universidade Ceuma
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa e Desenvolvimento Científico do Maranhão
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Meire Coelho Ferreira, Universidade Ceuma
- Investigators
- Meire C. Ferreira, PhD, Study director, Programa de Mestrado em Odontologia
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT02555501
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- MCCF-060264-AM
- Acronym
- OMLTPT
- Status last verified
- Sep 2015
- First submitted
- 17 Sep 2015
- Last updated
- 21 Sep 2015
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- Yes
Publications
Braga PE, Latorre Md Mdo R, Curado MP. [Childhood cancer: a comparative analysis of incidence, mortality, and survival in Goiania (Brazil) and other countries]. Cad Saude Publica. 2002 Jan-Feb;18(1):33-44. doi: 10.1590/s0102-311x2002000100004. Portuguese.
PubMed 11910422Instituto Nacional do Câncer (Brasil). Incidência de Câncer no Brasil: Estimativa 2014/2015. Rio de Janeiro: INCA, 2014.
Bonan PRF, Lopes MA, Alves FA, Almeida OP. Clinical, biological, histopathological and proposed treatments for oral mucositis induced by radiation therapy: Literature Review. J Oncol 2005; 51:235-42.
Sonis ST. Pathobiology of mucositis. Semin Oncol Nurs. 2004 Feb;20(1):11-5. doi: 10.1053/j.soncn.2003.10.003.
PubMed 15038512Chan KK, Oza AM, Siu LL. The statins as anticancer agents. Clin Cancer Res. 2003 Jan;9(1):10-9.
PubMed 12538446Reichart PA, Philipsen HP. Oral Pathology; Trad. John Peter Stein and Maximiano Ferreira Tovo. Porto Alegre: Medical Arts South; 2000.
Andrade MC, Ribeiro AP, Dovigo LN, Brunetti IL, Giampaolo ET, Bagnato VS, Pavarina AC. Effect of different pre-irradiation times on curcumin-mediated photodynamic therapy against planktonic cultures and biofilms of Candida spp. Arch Oral Biol. 2013 Feb;58(2):200-10. doi: 10.1016/j.archoralbio.2012.10.011. Epub 2012 Nov 13.
PubMed 23153629Lee YH, Park HW, Lee JH, Seo HW, Lee SY. The photodynamic therapy on Streptococcus mutans biofilms using erythrosine and dental halogen curing unit. Int J Oral Sci. 2012 Dec;4(4):196-201. doi: 10.1038/ijos.2012.63. Epub 2012 Dec 7.
PubMed 23222991Mattiello FD, Coelho AA, Martins OP, Mattiello RD, Ferrao Junior JP. In vitro effect of photodynamic therapy on aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans and Streptococcus sanguinis. Braz Dent J. 2011;22(5):398-403. doi: 10.1590/s0103-64402011000500009.
PubMed 22011896Miyabe M, Junqueira JC, Costa AC, Jorge AO, Ribeiro MS, Feist IS. Effect of photodynamic therapy on clinical isolates of Staphylococcus spp. Braz Oral Res. 2011 May-Jun;25(3):230-4. doi: 10.1590/s1806-83242011005000006. Epub 2011 Feb 25.
PubMed 21359491Ishiyama K, Nakamura K, Ikai H, Kanno T, Kohno M, Sasaki K, Niwano Y. Bactericidal action of photogenerated singlet oxygen from photosensitizers used in plaque disclosing agents. PLoS One. 2012;7(5):e37871. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0037871. Epub 2012 May 22.
PubMed 22629466Corti L, Chiarion-Sileni V, Aversa S, Ponzoni A, D'Arcais R, Pagnutti S, Fiore D, Sotti G. Treatment of chemotherapy-induced oral mucositis with light-emitting diode. Photomed Laser Surg. 2006 Apr;24(2):207-13. doi: 10.1089/pho.2006.24.207.
PubMed 16706701Sonis ST. Mucosite oral em câncer de cabeça e pescoço: risco, biologia e gestão. Am Soc Clin Oncol Educ Book 2013; 33: 236.
Sonis ST, Fazio RC, Fang L. Principles and Practice of Oral Medicine. 2 ed. Rio de Janeiro: Guanabara Koogan; 1996.
Brown CG, Wingard J. Clinical consequences of oral mucositis. Semin Oncol Nurs. 2004 Feb;20(1):16-21. doi: 10.1053/j.soncn.2003.10.004.
PubMed 15038513
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 21 Sep 2015. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Laser Therapy Associated With Photodynamic Therapy in the Treatment of Oral Mucositis Induced by Chemotherapy in Young Patients: Randomized Blind Clinical Trial
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT02555501
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- OMLTPT / MCCF-060264-AM
- Conditions
- Oral Mucositis
- Keywords
- children, cancer, stomatitis, clinical trial, laser therapy, low-level, methylene blue, photochemotherapy
- Phase
- Phase 3
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 18 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Universidade CeumaUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa e Desenvolvimento Científico do Maranhão
- Study start
- Oct 2014
- Primary completion
- Sep 2015 (actual)
- Study completion
- Sep 2015 (actual)
- First posted
- 21 Sep 2015 (estimated)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
The aim of the study was to evaluate the therapeutic action through the diameter of the lesion, of low level laser (LLL) associated to photodynamic therapy (PDT) in oral mucositis (OM) lesions, in young patients. A randomized clinical trial blinded, split-mouth was performed. The study sample consisted of 15 cancer patients (3-16 years old) of Aldenora Bello Hospital (São Luís, Maranhão, Brazil). Random allocation by lot of treatments (PDT + LLL and LLL) to quadrants of the oral cavity was performed, and the patient was his own control. Patients were masked about therapy performed on each side of the arch. The evaluation period of both therapeutic regimens was 8 days, and the outcome assessed was the lesion size (measured in cm²). Friedman and Wilcoxon tests were applied and the effect magnitude calculated. The significance level was 5%. Statistically significant difference was observed between the groups for the lesion diameter of the 6th to the 8th day (greater regression of lesion size for the PDT + LLL group), which was confirmed by a difference magnitude moderated. Based on the findings, it is concluded that PDT + LLL showed greater therapeutic effect when compared to LLL in reducing the severity of OM lesions.
Detailed description
The blind randomized clinical trial included 18 young patients, between 3 and 16 years old, undergoing chemotherapy or chemo/radiological the pediatric ward of Aldenora Bello Hospital in São Luís (Maranhão, Brazil). The study was conducted from October/2014 to January/2015. It was adopted as inclusion criteria patients between 3 and 18 years old, in the inductive phase of chemotherapy, with oral mucositis (OM) and bilateral lesions.
A mouth split model was conducted, and the patients were their own controls. The entry of the patients in the study occurred consecutively. To each patient, the operator/examiner drafted an envelope containing treatments to either side, being masked patient about the treatment of each side: PDT (photosensitized and low level laser) + low level laser; Low level laser].
The following parameters were used for the calculation of sample size: 95% confidence level, 80% statistical power and minimal difference of 0.82 point in the lesions diameter detected between paired samples. A "n" sample minimum of 14 was determined for each treatment. In order to compensate for possible losses, 18 patients were treated.
The treatments (PDT and low level laser; Low level laser) were performed in a hospital bed. Prior to treatment, the OM lesions were evaluated and a lesion on each side was chosen. Lesions should be located at the same site on both sides. The chosen site was the lip mucosa. Before the procedure, the patient was instructed as to brushing and not using mouthwashes, followed by cleaning of the oral cavity with gauze and distilled water. Two days before the laser treatment, the side of the oral cavity chosen for the experimental treatment (PDT and low level laser) was pigmented with the photosensitizer (aqueous solution of 0.005% methylene blue). A ball of sterile cotton was soaked in the dye solution and placed in the center of the lesion. Photosensitizer remained in the place for 5 minutes (pre-irradiation period). Then, to activate the dye, the lesion was irradiated with red light (InGaAlP / phosphide and Indium, Gallium and potassium) (Flash Laser III, DMC, São Carlos, São Paulo, Brazil), with a wavelength of 660 nm, for a period 90 seconds, with a power of 100mW, to 1cm away, according to the manufacturer's specifications. The lesion on the opposite side was treated with ball of sterile cotton soaked in distilled water and the laser unit placed on the lesion without activation of the light. This procedure aimed to mask the patient about the side that received the experimental therapy (PDT and low level laser). This masking was possible because the experimental solution is insipid, very soluble and thus leaves no residue.
From the 3rd to the 10th day (total of 8 days) was carried out only laser therapy on both sides. Lesions were evaluated until the 8th day. After the 8th day of assessment, the lesions were only treated to a complete remission as well as other lesions present in the oral cavity. For laser therapy was first used infrared emitter laser unit with active medium AsGaAl (Gallium Arsenide and Aluminium), with wavelength of 808nm, for analgesia. Then, the investigators used the red emitter, whose active medium was the InGaAlP (phosphide and Indium, Gallium and Potassium), with wavelength of 660nm to photobiomodulation. For both units emitting laser, the tip of the device was closed against the edges of the lesion, perpendicular to the tissue. A irradiation was continuous and the application punctual (10 seconds). The distance between the points of irradiation was about 1cm. The energy delivered was 4J per point of application. The interval between sessions was 24 hours.
The tip of the laser was disinfected with 70% alcohol solution and wrapped with a plastic film. Patients and operators wore glasses for eye protection.
A questionnaire containing demographic, socioeconomic and type of treatment for cancer was applied to parents and children. White blood cell count and platelets (beginning and end of the inductive phase of QT) were extracted from medical records.
The assessed outcome measure was the diameter of the lesion (in cm2). The areas of the lesions were measured with a flexible ruler (record made in cm2) by the operator/examiner from the start of treatment with exclusive laser therapy (3rd day). This procedure was repeated on subsequent days until the 8th day of laser treatment. The measurement of the lesions occurred prior to laser therapy applications.
The Friedman test was used for multiple comparisons within groups (different times of treatment). Paired evaluation between each two moments was evaluated using the Wilcoxon test, with significance corrected by Bonferroni test (p = 0.0071). The Wilcoxon test was used to compare the diameter of the lesion, every day, between the PDT + Low level laser and Low level laser groups (dependent samples/split-mouth). It calculated the effect magnitude (d) of standardized differences between averages of two groups. The level of significance for analysis was 5%.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Treatment
- Allocation
- Randomised
- Intervention model
- Parallel groups
- Masking
- Single blind (participant)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| PDT + Low level laser | Experimental | Other: PDT + Low level laserPDT (photosensitizer and low level laser) and low level laser Photosensitizer: aqueous solution of 0.005% methylene blue; Low level laser: infrared emitter laser unit with active medium AsGaAl (Gallium Arsenide and Aluminium) and red emitter with active medium InGaAlP (phosphide and Indium, Gallium and Potassium) |
| Low level laser | Active comparator | Radiation: Low level laserLow level laser: infrared emitter laser unit with active medium AsGaAl (Gallium Arsenide and Aluminium) and red emitter with active medium InGaAlP (phosphide and Indium, Gallium and Potassium) |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 3 to 18 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Child, Adult
Key inclusion criteria (3 listed)
- Patients between 3 and 18 years old
- Patients on chemotherapy inductive phase
- Patients with oral mucositis and bilateral lesions
Key exclusion criteria (3 listed)
- Patients outside the established age
- Patients who are in other phases of chemotherapy
- Patients who did not have bilateral lesions
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| PDT + Low level laserTwo days before the laser treatment, the side of the oral cavity chosen for the experimental treatment was pigmented with aqueous solution of 0.005% methylene blue. A ball of sterile cotton was soaked in the dye solution and placed in the center of the lesion. Photosensitizer remained in the place for 5 minutes (pre-irradiation period). Then, to activate the dye, the lesion was irradiated with red light (InGaAlP / phosphide and Indium, Gallium and potassium). From the 3rd to the 10th day was carried out only laser therapy. For laser therapy was first used infrared emitter laser unit with active medium AsGaAl (Gallium Arsenide and Aluminium). Then, we used the red emitter, whose active medium was the InGaAlP (phosphide and Indium, Gallium and Potassium). | Other | PDT + Low level laser |
| Low level laserTwo days before the laser treatment, the lesion of the side of the oral cavity chosen for the control treatment was treated with ball of sterile cotton soaked in distilled water and the laser unit placed on the lesion without activation of the light. From the 3rd to the 10th day was carried out laser therapy. For laser therapy was first used infrared emitter laser unit with active medium AsGaAl (Gallium Arsenide and Aluminium). Then, we used the red emitter, whose active medium was the InGaAlP (phosphide and Indium, Gallium and Potassium). | Radiation | Low level laser |
Primary outcome
Lesion size
Time frame: 8 days
Lesion size measured in cm²
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 21 Sep 2015.
- Background: PubMed 11910422Braga PE, Latorre Md Mdo R, Curado MP. [Childhood cancer: a comparative analysis of incidence, mortality, and survival in Goiania (Brazil) and other countries]. Cad Saude Publica. 2002 Jan-Feb;18(1):33-44. doi: 10.1590/s0102-311x2002000100004. Portuguese.
- BackgroundInstituto Nacional do Câncer (Brasil). Incidência de Câncer no Brasil: Estimativa 2014/2015. Rio de Janeiro: INCA, 2014.
- BackgroundBonan PRF, Lopes MA, Alves FA, Almeida OP. Clinical, biological, histopathological and proposed treatments for oral mucositis induced by radiation therapy: Literature Review. J Oncol 2005; 51:235-42.
- Background: PubMed 15038512Sonis ST. Pathobiology of mucositis. Semin Oncol Nurs. 2004 Feb;20(1):11-5. doi: 10.1053/j.soncn.2003.10.003.
- Background: PubMed 12538446Chan KK, Oza AM, Siu LL. The statins as anticancer agents. Clin Cancer Res. 2003 Jan;9(1):10-9.
- BackgroundReichart PA, Philipsen HP. Oral Pathology; Trad. John Peter Stein and Maximiano Ferreira Tovo. Porto Alegre: Medical Arts South; 2000.
- Background: PubMed 23153629Andrade MC, Ribeiro AP, Dovigo LN, Brunetti IL, Giampaolo ET, Bagnato VS, Pavarina AC. Effect of different pre-irradiation times on curcumin-mediated photodynamic therapy against planktonic cultures and biofilms of Candida spp. Arch Oral Biol. 2013 Feb;58(2):200-10. doi: 10.1016/j.archoralbio.2012.10.011. Epub 2012 Nov 13.
- Background: PubMed 23222991Lee YH, Park HW, Lee JH, Seo HW, Lee SY. The photodynamic therapy on Streptococcus mutans biofilms using erythrosine and dental halogen curing unit. Int J Oral Sci. 2012 Dec;4(4):196-201. doi: 10.1038/ijos.2012.63. Epub 2012 Dec 7.
- Background: PubMed 22011896Mattiello FD, Coelho AA, Martins OP, Mattiello RD, Ferrao Junior JP. In vitro effect of photodynamic therapy on aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans and Streptococcus sanguinis. Braz Dent J. 2011;22(5):398-403. doi: 10.1590/s0103-64402011000500009.
- Background: PubMed 21359491Miyabe M, Junqueira JC, Costa AC, Jorge AO, Ribeiro MS, Feist IS. Effect of photodynamic therapy on clinical isolates of Staphylococcus spp. Braz Oral Res. 2011 May-Jun;25(3):230-4. doi: 10.1590/s1806-83242011005000006. Epub 2011 Feb 25.
- Background: PubMed 22629466Ishiyama K, Nakamura K, Ikai H, Kanno T, Kohno M, Sasaki K, Niwano Y. Bactericidal action of photogenerated singlet oxygen from photosensitizers used in plaque disclosing agents. PLoS One. 2012;7(5):e37871. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0037871. Epub 2012 May 22.
- Background: PubMed 16706701Corti L, Chiarion-Sileni V, Aversa S, Ponzoni A, D'Arcais R, Pagnutti S, Fiore D, Sotti G. Treatment of chemotherapy-induced oral mucositis with light-emitting diode. Photomed Laser Surg. 2006 Apr;24(2):207-13. doi: 10.1089/pho.2006.24.207.
Related trials for Oral Mucositis
Not yet recruiting
Recurrent Aphthous Stomatitis Management in Children Using Diode Laser 980 Nanometer Versus Hyaluronic Acid Gel (RCT)
Apthous Ulcer
RecruitingPhase 2
Traditional Chinese Medicine Preparation Alleviates Radiotherapy-induced Oral Mucositis in Head and Neck Cancer Patients.
Radiotherapy-induced Oral Mucositis
RecruitingPhase 3
High-dose Prophylactic Gabapentin (HOPE) vs. Placebo to Prevent Opioid Use for Oral Mucositis Pain During Concurrent Chemoradiation for Head and Neck Cancer
Head and Neck Squamous Cell Carcinoma, Stage I Head and Neck Cutaneous Squamous Cell Carcinoma AJCC v8
RecruitingObservational study
Evaluation of 25(OH)D3 and LL-37 Levels in Periimplant Sulcus Fluid
Peri Implantitis, Peri Implant Mucositis
RecruitingPhase 2
Taurine for the Prevention and Treatment of Radiation-induced Oral Mucositis in Patients With Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma
Oral Mucositis (Ulcerative) Due to Radiation, Nasopharyngeal Carcinoma (NPC)
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Meire C. Ferreira, PhD study director
Programa de Mestrado em Odontologia
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A Phase 3 study testing PDT + Low level laser and Low level laser in people with Oral Mucositis, run by Universidade Ceuma at 1 site in Brazil.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 3 inclusion and 3 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 21 Sep 2015. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in Brazil. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
What does this phase mean?
Phase 3 studies compare the treatment with the current standard treatment or a placebo in a large group, to confirm how well it works and watch for side effects.
Not every study follows the same path, and some studies (observational studies, device studies) have no phase.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Lesion size (time frame: 8 days). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT02555501, which also lists 36 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 21 Sep 2015.