pôster congresso ipa

1
Abstract. This project proposes compare LED and laser light transmission in tissue model samples containing methylene blue. Due to the crescent availability of light sources used on phototherapy, this project aims to help user to choose and use the devices for a better therapeutic efficiency. Keywords: light-tissue interaction, photodynamic therapy, LED, laser INTRODUCTION The use of light sources to treat diseases is widespreading not only in medicine, but also in dentistry, physiotherapy and podology. Nowadays, the most used light sources are LED and laser. They are used to treat, for example, diabetic foot with photodynamic therapy (PDT), where a photosensitizer (FS) is activated by light, generating oxygen reactive species, capable to kill malignant cells and microorganisms [1,2]. OBJECTIVE Compare LED and laser light transmission in collagen samples containing the FS methylene blue (MB) to ensure treatment efficacy according to dosimetric parameters available on literature. MATERIAL AND METHODS Fig. 1 Typical evolution of patients in the group treated with PDT. A) Start of the treatment: middle toe with ulcerated lesions B) The same toe after four months of PDT treatment [3]. LED AND LASER LIGHT TRANSMISSION STUDY FOR PDT APPLICATION Valter Valentim Lula Júnior ([email protected]) Universidade Federal do ABC (UFABC) - Rua Arcturus, 03 - Jardim Antares, São Bernardo do Campo - SP - Brasil 15 th International Photodynamic Association World Congress – Rio de Janeiro, Brazil - May 22 to 26, 2015 MB 2.4 10 -5 g/mL 1 mL of sample Cuvette l = 1cm laser 660 nm 100 mW collagen 0.1 g/mL LED 660 nm 100 mW fluorescence analysis 2 samples with 1cm² of irradiation surface A RESULTS CONCLUSION It seems that laser is more efficient because its broadband is more utilized. Nevertheless, with more energy, LED could have the same result than laser, but it can cause more heating, energy comsumption and scattering. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS To CEPOF for the laboratorial support. REFERENCES 1. Jori G. Tumour photosensitizers: approaches to enhance the selectivity and efficiency of PDT. J Photochem Photobiol B, v. 36, p.87-93, 1996. 2. Daghastanli, N. A. et al. Photocytotoxicity of a 5-nitrofuranethenyl-quinoline antiseptic (Quinifuryl) to P388 mouse leukemia cells. Braz. J. Medical Biological Research, v. 37, n. 12, p. 1873-1879, 2004. 3. Tardivo, J. P. et al. A clinical trial testing the efficacy of PDT in preventing amputation in diabetic patients. Photodiagnosis Photodyn Ther, v. 11, p. 342-350, 2014 Fig. 4 MB degradation for LED and laser According to Figure 4, laser causes more MB degradation than LED, operating at 100 mW/cm². Considering that laser energy is absorbed with 90% efficiency for each minute of irradiation, its fluence is 5.4 J/cm². At 100 mW/cm², LED efficiency on degradation is lower because part of light, approximatelly 40%, is not utilized (Figure 5). Therefore its fluence is 3.4 J/cm². Aproximating the LED source from the sample, its energy on sample surface is multiplied by three, resulting on a fluence of 9.72 J/cm². Fig. 5 Methylene blue absorbance spectrum with LED and laser irradiation broadband Fig. 3 A) LED and laser irradiation B) Cuvette with MB C) irradiation profile throught cuvette B C A Fig. 2 Arrangement for irradiation and fluorescence analysis

Upload: valter-valentim-lula-junior

Post on 17-Feb-2017

129 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Pôster congresso IPA

Abstract. This project proposes compare LED and laser light transmission in tissue model samples containing methylene blue. Due to the crescent availability of light sources used on phototherapy, this project aims to help user to choose and use the devices for a better therapeutic efficiency.

Keywords: light-tissue interaction, photodynamic therapy, LED, laser

INTRODUCTION

The use of light sources to treat diseases is widespreading not only in medicine,

but also in dentistry, physiotherapy and podology. Nowadays, the most used

light sources are LED and laser.

They are used to treat, for example, diabetic foot with photodynamic therapy

(PDT), where a photosensitizer (FS) is activated by light, generating oxygen

reactive species, capable to kill malignant cells and microorganisms [1,2].

OBJECTIVE

Compare LED and laser light transmission in collagen samples containing the FS

methylene blue (MB) to ensure treatment efficacy according to dosimetric

parameters available on literature.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Fig. 1 Typical evolution of patients in the group treated with PDT. A) Start of the treatment: middle toe with ulcerated lesions B) The same toe after four months

of PDT treatment [3].

LED AND LASER LIGHT TRANSMISSION STUDY

FOR PDT APPLICATION

Valter Valentim Lula Júnior ([email protected])

Universidade Federal do ABC (UFABC) - Rua Arcturus, 03 - Jardim Antares, São Bernardo do Campo - SP - Brasil

15th International Photodynamic Association World Congress – Rio de Janeiro, Brazil - May 22 to 26, 2015

MB 2.4 10-5 g/mL

1 mL of sample

Cuvette l = 1cm

laser 660 nm 100 mW

collagen 0.1 g/mL

LED 660 nm 100 mW

fluorescence analysis

2 samples with 1cm² of irradiation surface

A

RESULTS

CONCLUSION

It seems that laser is more efficient because its broadband is more utilized.

Nevertheless, with more energy, LED could have the same result than laser, but it

can cause more heating, energy comsumption and scattering.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

To CEPOF for the laboratorial support.

REFERENCES

1. Jori G. Tumour photosensitizers: approaches to enhance the selectivity and efficiency of

PDT. J Photochem Photobiol B, v. 36, p.87-93, 1996.

2. Daghastanli, N. A. et al. Photocytotoxicity of a 5-nitrofuranethenyl-quinoline antiseptic

(Quinifuryl) to P388 mouse leukemia cells. Braz. J. Medical Biological Research, v. 37, n. 12, p.

1873-1879, 2004.

3. Tardivo, J. P. et al. A clinical trial testing the efficacy of PDT in preventing amputation in

diabetic patients. Photodiagnosis Photodyn Ther, v. 11, p. 342-350, 2014

Fig. 4 MB degradation for LED and laser

According to Figure 4, laser causes more MB degradation than LED, operating at

100 mW/cm². Considering that laser energy is absorbed with 90% efficiency for

each minute of irradiation, its fluence is 5.4 J/cm².

At 100 mW/cm², LED efficiency on degradation is lower because part of light,

approximatelly 40%, is not utilized (Figure 5). Therefore its fluence is 3.4 J/cm².

Aproximating the LED source from the sample, its energy on sample surface is

multiplied by three, resulting on a fluence of 9.72 J/cm².

Fig. 5 Methylene blue absorbance spectrum with LED and laser irradiation

broadband

Fig. 3 A) LED and laser irradiation B) Cuvette with MB C) irradiation profile throught cuvette

B

C

A

Fig. 2 Arrangement for irradiation and fluorescence analysis