Dataset Information

Effects of low-level light therapy on dentin hypersensitivity: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To investigate the treatment efficacy of low-level light therapy on dentin hypersensitivity.

Materials and methods

Following the PRISMA guideline, six electronic databases supplemented with bibliographies were searched till December 2020. Two reviewers performed the screenings independently with a reliability assessment. Studies fulfilling the pre-registered eligibility criteria were included for risk-of-bias assessment and data synthesis.

Results

Thirty-five articles ultimately informed this systematic review based on the eligibility criteria and underwent risk-of-bias assessment (ĸ = 0.86). Quantitative results were deduced by meta-analysis of 20 randomised controlled trials: LLLT showed favourable outcomes compared to placebos for immediate (SMD: 1.09, 95% CI: 0.47 to 1.70), interim (SMD: 1.32, 95% CI: 0.41 to 2.23), and persistent efficacies (SMD: 2.86, 95% CI: 1.98 to 3.74). However, substantial heterogeneity existed among included studies (I²: 64-95%). Regarding comparisons with other desensitising strategies, LLLT showed no significant benefits in DH alleviation over others except fluorides for interim efficacy (SMD: 0.31, 95% CI: 0.10 to 0.52) and persistent efficacy (SMD: 0.45, 95% CI: 0.03 to 0.86).

Conclusions

This systematic review shows that LLLT has positive immediate, interim, and persistent DH-treatment efficacies compared with placebo. No superior treatment effects of LLLT were observed except fluoride agent use. Further studies are warranted-RCTs with low risk of bias, consistent technical settings, comprehensive assessments, and long follow-up periods.

Clinical relevance

This systematic review bridges a critical research gap by analysing clinical evidence in the DH-alleviating efficacy of LLLT in comparison with placebo and other in-office desensitising strategies.

SUBMITTER: Shan Z

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8602177 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

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.

Project description:Introduction: Dentin hypersensitivity is a common oral problem that occurs as a short and sharp pain. There are many techniques to treat this condition, the latest of which is laser treatment. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of two types of low-power diode lasers (660 nm and 810 nm) on dentin hypersensitivity in order to achieve an acceptable clinical application by adjusting the effective parameters. Methods: In this randomized, double-blind clinical trial, sensitive teeth of 7 patients were divided into three groups with a randomized matching method: group I, treated with 660-nm diode laser irradiation, group II, treated with diode laser 810-nm, and group III, the control group. Irradiation parameters for 660-nm and 810-nm diode lasers were the power of 30 mW and 100 mW respectively, in contact and continuous modes, perpendicular to the tooth surface with a sweeping motion. Treatments were carried out in four sessions at weekly intervals. The data obtained were analyzed with SPSS 22, using one-way repeated measures ANOVA and the LSD (least significant difference) test. The significance level was considered as P?0.05. Results: There were no significant differences in visual analogue scale (VAS) score changes between the two laser groups after the intervention in the first, second and third weeks compared to the baseline (P>0.05). These changes in the fourth week were significantly higher in the 810-nm laser group compared to the 660-nm laser group (P=0.04), and in the 660-nm laser group, they were more than the control group (P=0.02). The mean VAS scores at 1-week, 1-month and 2-month postoperative intervals were significantly lower in the 810-nm laser group than in the 660-nm laser group, and in the 660-nm laser group, they were less than the control group (P<0.001). Conclusion: The use of 660-nm and 810-nm diode lasers with the power of 30 and 100 mW respectively for 120 seconds was effective in reducing pain in patients with dentin hypersensitivity. However, the effect of the 810-nm laser on reducing the dentin hypersensitivity was more long-lasting than that of the 660-nm laser.