case_images: PMC4637444_01
case_images: Mouth opening of both patients before treatment.
case_images: CRID2015-424213.001.jpg
case_images: PMC4637444_02_CRID2015-424213.001.jpg
case_images: fig1
case_images: The main complaint was his restricted mouth opening that was progressed in one year due to the impact taken to the mandible in an exercise (Figure 1).
case_images: Laser device.
case_images: CRID2015-424213.002.jpg
case_images: PMC4637444_01_CRID2015-424213.002.jpg
case_images: fig2
case_images: Therapy Device) (Figure 2). The treatment protocol was decided according to the literature.
case_images: Laser treatment regions.
case_images: CRID2015-424213.003.jpg
case_images: PMC4637444_01_CRID2015-424213.003.jpg
case_images: fig3
case_images: Laser beam was applied at three points in each TMJ: (a) the posterior aspect of the joint in maximum opening to treat the posterior articular branches of the auriculotemporal nerve and posterior discal attachment region by applying the beam from the anterior of the external auditory channel and (b) same region in maximum opening from inside the external auditory channel (c) to the inferior branches of the medial pterygoid muscle with the fine fiber optic probe of the device from inside the mouth through the posterior of the tuber maxilla (Figure 3).
case_images: Mouth opening of both patients after treatment.
case_images: CRID2015-424213.004.jpg
case_images: PMC4637444_02_CRID2015-424213.004.jpg
case_images: fig4
case_images: After the last application of the treatment MMO was increased to 45 mm (Figure 4), RE and LE were also increased to 8 mm (Figure 5), and he was painless during these limits of movement.
case_images: Lateral movement of both patients after treatment.
case_images: CRID2015-424213.005.jpg
case_images: PMC4637444_02_CRID2015-424213.005.jpg
case_images: fig5
case_images: After the last application of the treatment MMO was increased to 45 mm (Figure 4), RE and LE were also increased to 8 mm (Figure 5), and he was painless during these limits of movement.
case_images: PMC4637444_02
case_images: Mouth opening of both patients before treatment.
case_images: CRID2015-424213.001.jpg
case_images: PMC4637444_02_CRID2015-424213.001.jpg
case_images: fig1
case_images: The main complaint was his restricted mouth opening that was progressed in one year due to the impact taken to the mandible in an exercise (Figure 1).
case_images: Mouth opening of both patients after treatment.
case_images: CRID2015-424213.004.jpg
case_images: PMC4637444_02_CRID2015-424213.004.jpg
case_images: fig4
case_images: After the last application of the treatment MMO was increased to 45 mm (Figure 4), RE and LE were also increased to 8 mm (Figure 5), and he was painless during these limits of movement.
case_images: Lateral movement of both patients after treatment.
case_images: CRID2015-424213.005.jpg
case_images: PMC4637444_02_CRID2015-424213.005.jpg
case_images: fig5
case_images: After the last application of the treatment MMO was increased to 45 mm (Figure 4), RE and LE were also increased to 8 mm (Figure 5), and he was painless during these limits of movement.