# Qualitative Comparison of LED and LASER Effects on Cutaneous Wound Healing: A Systematic Review of Experimental Studies

## TL;DR

This review compares LED and laser light therapy for wound healing, finding both effective but with lasers showing slightly better results in some areas.

## Contribution

The study systematically compares LED and LASER effects on wound healing, clarifying their similarities and differences in preclinical settings.

## Key findings

- Both LED and LASER promote similar photobiomodulatory effects on wound healing.
- LLLT shows quantitatively better results in blood vessel density and collagen deposition.
- The overall therapeutic effects of LED and LASER are comparable despite parameter differences.

## Abstract

This systematic review presents qualitative comparisons between LED and LASER photobiomodulation in cutaneous wound healing, limited by the substantial heterogeneity of experimental parameters. Chronic wounds represent a major clinical challenge due to prolonged healing times, high risk of infection, and increased healthcare costs. Photobiomodulation (PBM) using low‐level laser therapy (LLLT) and light‐emitting diode (LED) devices has emerged as a promising therapeutic strategy for tissue repair. However, the equivalence of the biological and therapeutic effects of these light sources remains debated. The aim of this review is to clarify these effects by systematically comparing LLLT and LED sources on cutaneous wound healing. Comprehensive searches were conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Embase using terms related to wound healing, LLLT, and LED. We included exclusively controlled in vivo or in vitro studies that directly compared the effects of LLLT and LED on cutaneous wound healing or related biological processes. Of 2020 identified studies, 16 met the inclusion criteria. Both LED and laser promote relevant cellular effects, contributing to the tissue repair process. Findings indicate that both devices promote similar photobiomodulatory effects by activating key cellular and molecular mechanisms essential for wound repair. This review presents predominantly qualitative comparisons between LED and LASER in wound healing, limited by the substantial heterogeneity of experimental parameters. Nevertheless, the available evidence indicates that, although LLLT shows quantitatively superior effects on parameters such as blood vessel density and caliber and type I collagen deposition, both modalities demonstrate similar preclinical effects. (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews registration number: CRD420251086145).

Chronic wounds present a major clinical challenge, characterized by delayed healing, heightened risk of infection, and significant healthcare costs.Photobiomodulation, using low‐level laser therapy (LLLT) and light‐emitting diodes (LEDs), has been widely investigated as a therapeutic strategy to accelerate repair.However, debate continues regarding whether these two light sources produce equivalent biological effects.This systematic review compiled in vitro and in vivo studies that directly compared the effects of LED and LLLT on skin wound healing.Findings revealed that both modalities enhanced cell viability, proliferation, migration, inflammatory modulation, collagen deposition, and angiogenesis.While LLLT demonstrated quantitatively superior outcomes for certain parameters, such as blood vessel density and type I collagen deposition, the overall effects were comparable.These results support clinical decision‐making based not only on biological efficacy but also on practical considerations such as cost, availability, and wound characteristics.

Chronic wounds present a major clinical challenge, characterized by delayed healing, heightened risk of infection, and significant healthcare costs.

Photobiomodulation, using low‐level laser therapy (LLLT) and light‐emitting diodes (LEDs), has been widely investigated as a therapeutic strategy to accelerate repair.

However, debate continues regarding whether these two light sources produce equivalent biological effects.

This systematic review compiled in vitro and in vivo studies that directly compared the effects of LED and LLLT on skin wound healing.

Findings revealed that both modalities enhanced cell viability, proliferation, migration, inflammatory modulation, collagen deposition, and angiogenesis.

While LLLT demonstrated quantitatively superior outcomes for certain parameters, such as blood vessel density and type I collagen deposition, the overall effects were comparable.

These results support clinical decision‐making based not only on biological efficacy but also on practical considerations such as cost, availability, and wound characteristics.