Guoyi Jing1, Yatao Zhao2, Fangrui Dong1, Pengfei Zhang1, Hui Ren1, Jingying Liu1, Yang Liu1, Caiyun Yu1, Jingjing Hu1, Guangjie Bao3, Hong Kang4. 1. Department of Temporomandibular Joint and Occlusion, School/Hospital of Stomatology, Lanzhou University, Dong Gang Xi Road 199#, Lanzhou, 730000, People's Republic of China. 2. Department of Orthodontics, Xiangya Hospital and School of Stomatology, Central South University, Changsha, 410078, People's Republic of China. 3. Key Laboratory of Stomatology of State Ethnic Affairs Commission, Northwest Minzu University, Lanzhou, 730000, People's Republic of China. 2645784430@qq.com. 4. Department of Temporomandibular Joint and Occlusion, School/Hospital of Stomatology, Lanzhou University, Dong Gang Xi Road 199#, Lanzhou, 730000, People's Republic of China. kanghong@lzu.edu.cn.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the effects of different energy density LLLT on TMD patients' pain reduction. METHODS: Reviewers searched RCTs published in Embase, PubMed and The Cochrane Library before 1 April 2020. Reviewers included parallelRCTs that compared the effects of LLLT with placebo or different energy density LLLT for TMD patients' pain reduction. Reviewers did network meta-analysis and evaluated the quality of evidence using the GRADE process. RESULTS: From 352 studies, reviewers included 16 RCTs. Immediately after treatment, the d1 laser therapy (energy density ranging from 0 to 10 J/cm2) ranked first. The d1 laser therapy showed more pain reduction than placebo ( MD = 2.49, 95% CI ranging from 1.28 to 3.71). The quality of "d1 vs p" comparison was assessed as "moderate" quality. A month after treatment, the d1 laser therapy also performed better than placebo (MD = 1.69, 95%CI = [-0.78, 4.16]). The quality of secondary outcome was assessed as "low" quality. CONCLUSIONS: For clinical application, d1 laser therapy (energy density ranging from 0 to 10 J/cm2) is recommended for short-term pain management of TMD patients (moderate quality evidence). A month after treatment, the d1 laser therapy also performed better than placebo and other laser groups but the result didn't reach the point of statistical significance (low quality evidence). TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO-CRD42018118313.
PURPOSE: To compare the effects of different energy density LLLT on TMDpatients' pain reduction. METHODS: Reviewers searched RCTs published in Embase, PubMed and The Cochrane Library before 1 April 2020. Reviewers included parallelRCTs that compared the effects of LLLT with placebo or different energy density LLLT for TMDpatients' pain reduction. Reviewers did network meta-analysis and evaluated the quality of evidence using the GRADE process. RESULTS: From 352 studies, reviewers included 16 RCTs. Immediately after treatment, the d1 laser therapy (energy density ranging from 0 to 10 J/cm2) ranked first. The d1 laser therapy showed more pain reduction than placebo ( MD = 2.49, 95% CI ranging from 1.28 to 3.71). The quality of "d1 vs p" comparison was assessed as "moderate" quality. A month after treatment, the d1 laser therapy also performed better than placebo (MD = 1.69, 95%CI = [-0.78, 4.16]). The quality of secondary outcome was assessed as "low" quality. CONCLUSIONS: For clinical application, d1 laser therapy (energy density ranging from 0 to 10 J/cm2) is recommended for short-term pain management of TMDpatients (moderate quality evidence). A month after treatment, the d1 laser therapy also performed better than placebo and other laser groups but the result didn't reach the point of statistical significance (low quality evidence). TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO-CRD42018118313.
Authors: Daniela Meneses-Santos; Marcelo D M A Costa; Gabriel S G Inocêncio; Arthur C Almeida; Walbert A Vieira; Igor F P Lima; Luiz R Paranhos Journal: Lasers Med Sci Date: 2021-11-17 Impact factor: 3.161
Authors: Aljaž Golež; Igor Frangež; Ksenija Cankar; Helena Ban Frangež; Maja Ovsenik; Lidija Nemeth Journal: Lasers Med Sci Date: 2021-08-19 Impact factor: 3.161