Dataset Information

The effectiveness of low-level laser therapy as an adjunct to non-surgical periodontal treatment: a meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background and objectives

Although low-level laser therapy (LLLT) has been demonstrated to have a biomodulatory effect on periodontal tissue, no systematic review has exclusively addressed its effectiveness as an adjunct to non-surgical periodontal treatment. This study aimed to evaluate whether an additional benefit exists for the application of LLLT compared with scaling and root planing (SRP) alone.

Material and methods

An extensive search was conducted in the Cochrane Library (Issue 8, 2015), PubMed (1997) and EMBASE (1947) before August 2015 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The bias risk was assessed with the Cochrane tool for risk of bias evaluation. A meta-analysis was performed using REVMAN 5.3.

Results

After independent screening of 354 initial records, eight publications (seven RCTs) were included. However, six were rated as 'having a high risk of bias' as a result of major methodological weakness in 'allocation concealment' and 'blinding of key personnel'. Meta-analysis showed that LLLT-mediated SRP demonstrated significant short-term benefits over SRP monotherapy in the improvement of the probing pocket depth (p = 0.0009 at 1 mo; p = 0.03 at 2 mo) and the level of interleukin-1β in the gingival crevicular fluid (p = 0.01 at 1 mo). Nevertheless, LLLT failed to show significant additional intermediate-term (3 and 6 mo) effects in terms of clinical parameters and alveolar bone density.

Conclusion

These findings indicated that LLLT showed only short-term additional benefits after conventional SRP. Its long-term effects remain unclear due to substantial methodological weaknesses and an insufficient number of current studies. Future RCTs with better designs and longer follow-up periods are required to assess the effectiveness of LLLT as an adjunctive treatment strategy in patients with periodontal disease.

SUBMITTER: Ren C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5297978 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Adjunctive use of laser devices as high reactive-level laser/light therapy (HLLT) or photobiomodulation therapy (PBMT) for periodontal therapy is known to be more effective on suppressing pain than conventional therapy, however, there are no systematic reviews addressed its effectiveness. This systematic review and meta-analysis aim to investigate the following clinical question (CQ): does adjunctive use of lasers with conventional therapy suppress the pain associated with periodontal treatment? A systematic and extensive literature search was performed to summarize the currently available knowledge to answer the CQ using the PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) conducted before June 2020. Bias risk was assessed using the Cochrane tool for the risk of bias evaluation. A meta-analysis was performed on quantitative evaluation of pain control based on patient-reported outcomes. After an independent screening of 165 initial records, ten RCTs were included. Six of them focused on surgical procedures and the others on non-surgical periodontal pocket therapy. The protocols of HLLT, PBMT, and combination with HLLT and PBMT were employed in five, four and one RCTs, respectively. Following the assessment of bias risk, it is revealed that all RCTs had methodological weaknesses regarding the blinding of key personnel, although other bias risk factors were not evident. Meta-analysis showed that HLLT using erbium lasers significantly reduced the patient-reported pain immediately after treatment (two RCTs, p < 0.0001), while PBMT using diode lasers significantly reduced pain 2-7 days after treatment (two RCTs, p < 0.0001 to p = 0.03). The presented systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that the alternative use of HLLT using erbium lasers to conventional instrumentation can significantly suppress postoperative pain and that intraoperative or postoperative PBMT using diode lasers combined with periodontal surgery can significantly reduce postoperative pain. However, the evidence is still insufficient and more well-designed RCTs are required.

Project description:The present study evaluated the effects of low-level laser therapy (LLLT) by means of a diode laser in accelerating orthodontic tooth movement (OTM). After extraction of the first upper premolars for orthodontic purpose, 82 maxillary canines which needed distalization were analyzed in 41 enrolled patients (21 males, 20 females, mean age 13.4 ± 2.1 years). On all experimental sites, an orthodontic force of 50/N was applied by a nickel-titanium (NiTi) closed coil spring (G&H, Franklin, IN, USA) in order to obtain the space closure. Using a split mouth randomized design, the test side was treated using a diode laser (Wiser Laser Doctor Smile, Brendola, Italy) operating at 810 nm wavelength in continuous wave mode at both the buccal and palatal side on three points/side (distal, medial and mesial) (1 W output power, continuous wave of 66.7 J/cm2, energy density of 8 J) at baseline and at 3, 7, and 14 days and every 15 days until the space closed. On the control side, the opposite selected canine was treated only using orthodontic traction. The primary outcome chosen was the overall time needed to complete the levelling and closing space, measured on a study cast. The secondary outcome chosen was the evaluation of pain levels related to tooth traction, using a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), recorded at 3, 7, and 14 days after treatments. The mean space closures of the maxillary canines were comparable between groups [Test, 4.56 mm (95% CI 3.9-4.8); Control, 4.49 mm (95% CI 3.8-4.7), p = 0.456]. The laser group yielded less mean time [84.35 ± 12.34 days (95% CI 79.3-86)] to accomplish space closure compared to the control group [97.49 ± 11.44 days (91.7-102.3)] (p < 0.001). The test side showed a significant reduction in the average range of dental pain at 3 [Test, 5.41 (95% CI 5.1-5.6); Control, 7.23 (95% CI 6.9-7.6), p < 0.001], 7 [Test, 4.12 (95% CI 3.8-4.7); Control, 5.79 (95% CI 5.4-5.8), p < 0.001], and at 14 days [Test, 2.31 (95% CI 1.8-2.3); Control, 3.84 (95% CI 3.3-4.2), p < 0.001] after treatment (p < 0.001). This study demonstrates that the use of LLLT therapy was effective in accelerating tooth movement and reducing pain levels related to OTM.

Project description:BackgroundsTo date, there is still no consensus about the clinical efficacy of non-surgical periodontal therapy in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) patients with periodontitis. Therefore, the aim of this study was to summarize clinical data regarding the efficacy of scaling and root planing (SRP) in patients with RA and periodontitis compared to non-RA periodontitis patients.MethodsWe selected randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared periodontal clinical data in RA as compared to non-RA periodontitis patients by searching Embase, PubMed and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and by manually retrieving from the earliest records to March 8, 2021. The overall effect size of plaque index (PI), gingival index (GI), attachment loss (AL), probing depth (PD) and bleeding on probing (BOP) were calculated by either a fixed or random-effect model, and subgroup analyses were conducted according to the different time points of follow-up. Two investigators extracted the data and assess the accuracy of the obtained results with 95% of Confidence Intervals (CI). Cochrane Collaboration's tool was responsible for the evaluation of the literature quality and the inter-study heterogeneity was evaluated by Q test and I2 statistic. Sensitivity analyses were applied for results with heterogeneity. Publication bias was determined by Begg's test, Egger's test and the trim-and-fill method.ResultsSeven RCTs including 212 patients eventually met the inclusion criteria for the study. As the primary results, the change of PD was not statistically significant and in the secondary results changes of PI, GI, AL and BOP were also not statistically significant in RA patients with periodontitis compared to non-RA periodontitis patients. In subgroup analysis, a larger BOP reduction at 3 months, PI and AL reduction at 6 months were observed in patients with RA and periodontitis group. The results of sensitivity analyses had no significant effect. No evidence of potential publication bias was tested. There were some limitations due to the small number of eligible RCTs.ConclusionsSRP is equally effective in RA as compared to non-RA periodontitis patients. It suggests RA does not affect the clinical efficacy of non-surgical periodontal therapy. These results could serve evidence-based practice.

Project description:IntroductionAllergic rhinitis (AR) is a common allergic disorder that impairs social and physical functioning as well as quality of life. It is characterized by sneezing, rhinorrhea, congestion, and itching which respond suboptimally to drug therapy. Low-level laser therapy (LLLT) has anti-inflammatory and immunosuppressive properties that have shown promise in some studies. We aimed to systematically review LLLT's effectiveness in treating AR and meta-analyze our findings.MethodsA systematic search of PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science was conducted on November 24, 2023. All studies investigating LLLT on AR were included, and a pre-post meta-analysis of nasal symptoms (rhinorrhea, nasal congestion, nasal itching, and sneezing) in the LLLT-treated arm was conducted. Rhinoconjunctivitis quality of life questionnaire (RQLQ) scores before and after LLLT were also meta-analyzed alongside a pairwise meta-analysis of LLLT with placebo, acupuncture, steroids/antihistamines, and ultraviolet lasers. A random-effects model was used with a conservative pre-post correlation of 0.4 and standardized mean difference (SMD) as the effect size.ResultsSixteen studies were included in this review, and we found that nasal symptoms are alleviated post-LLLT in people with AR (SMD: -1.4, 95 CI: [-2.07 to -1.13], p value <0.001). RQLQ scores were also reduced after LLLT (SMD = -0.72, 95 CI: [-0.94 to -0.50], p value <0.001), and very few adverse events were reported. This meta-analysis, however, had significant publication bias and heterogeneity. When compared to a placebo, LLLT did not significantly improve nasal symptoms (SMD: -0.69, p value = 0.167), which might mean the post-LLLT nasal symptom alleviation is due to a placebo effect. Comparisons to other treatment modalities were too few to deduce anything meaningful, although it does appear that LLLT is less effective than UV lasers.ConclusionLLLT is most likely effective at alleviating nasal symptomology and has a low likelihood of adverse event incidence, yet more high-quality studies with larger sample sizes are needed to compare LLLT to a placebo to ensure its superiority to the placebo effect, as well as non-inferiority clinical trials to compare it to standard treatments.