In October a paper was published claiming that class IV laser is more effective than class 3B for oral mucositis. The authors attempt to con the reader by asserting they used a “standard” 3B laser protocol, but instead they set up a weak protocol delivering just 15% of the recomended energy in order to make a “class IV laser” product appear more effective.
As you know the marketing claim for class IV devices is that they have more power so should go deeper, should reduce treatment time and should be more effective, well guess what, most of their power is using wavelengths that do not penetrate (970-980nm) [1]. All the evidence on dose consistently shows that over treatment reduces effectiveness [2][3], treatment times are longer due to the scanning technique [4] and when you look at the small handful of clinical trails done with class IV lasers they use the same irradiation parameters used by 3B lasers anyway![4]
Such misinformation is intended to direct a doctor / therapist away from what is proven to work in favour of something more expensive. If you you see a manuscript with “HILT” or “class IV laser” in the title watch out for the marketing spin.
I wrote a letter to the journal editor. I will post a link when it is published.
Lets hope the journal editor publishes your referenced and evidence based response.
Regarding the claim that Class 4 lasers are better, a clinic in Ipswich are claiming their lasers are very powerful at 3 and 5W and can penetrate a plaster cast. Have a look at the following link, pass back your comment.http://www.physioclinic.net/
I see the bit about 3 – 5 Watt lasers but not treating through a cast
Great job continuing the fight against mis-information. Unfortunate to see that researchers and reviewers continue to have a lack of understanding of the physics of light in biological tissue.