Efficacy of low-level laser therapy in the treatment of TMDs: a meta-analysis of 14 randomised controlled trials
Chen J, Huang Z, Ge M, Gao M
Journal of oral rehabilitation · 56 citations
Review labels
Neutral facts our review recorded about how this study was done. They describe method, never whether we like the result.
How it was studied
- Design
- Meta-analysis (indexed by PubMed)
- Studied in
- People
- Main outcome
- Health markers and function
Who paid for it
- Funding
- Funding not disclosed
Publication
- Published
- 2014-12-09 · J Oral Rehabil · vol. 42 · issue 4 · pp. 291–299
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Cited
- 90 citations · more than 92% of similar papers · 3.4× the field average
- Impact
- Top 10% most cited in its field
- References
- 31 works
- Access
- Paywalled
- Research areas
- Laser Applications in Dentistry and Medicine · Temporomandibular Joint Disorders · Botulinum Toxin and Related Neurological Disorders
- Keywords
- Confidence interval, Medicine, Meta-analysis, Placebo, Randomized controlled trial, Mean difference, Significant difference, Low level laser therapy, Strictly standardized mean difference, Physical therapy, Laser therapy, Internal medicine, Laser, Alternative medicine
- MeSH
- muscle, skeletal, humans, temporomandibular joint dysfunction syndrome, range of motion, articular, treatment outcome, randomized controlled trials as topic, chronic pain, low-level light therapy
4 authors
From CN
- Jintong ChenSichuan University
- Zeyu HuangSichuan University; West China Hospital of Sichuan University
- Meiling GeSichuan University; State Key Laboratory of Oral Diseases
- Mingxu Gao · correspondingStomatology Hospital
Abstract
This study was designed to evaluate the efficacy of low-level laser therapy (LLLT) in the treatment of temporomandibular disorders (TMDs). We searched electronic databases and references lists of relevant articles, retrieved all of the published randomised controlled trials in regard to these issues and then performed a meta-analysis. Fourteen highly qualified RCTs reporting on a total of 454 patients, which evaluated the effectiveness of LLLT for patients suffering from TMDs were retrieved. The results indicated that LLLT was not better than placebo in reducing chronic TMD pain (weighted mean difference = -19·39; 95% confidence interval = -40·80-2·03; P < 0·00001; I(2) = 99%). However, the LLLT provided significant better functional outcomes in terms of maximum active vertical opening (MAVO) (weighted mean difference = 4·18; 95% confidence interval = 0·73-7·63; P = 0·006; I(2) = 73%), maximum passive vertical opening (MPVO) (weighted mean difference = 6·73; 95% confidence interval = 01·34-12·13; P = 0·06; I(2) = 73%), protrusion excursion (PE) (weighted mean difference = 1·81; 95% confidence interval = 0·79-2·83; P = 0·59; I(2) = 0%) and right lateral excursion (RLE) (weighted mean difference = 2·86; 95% confidence interval = 1·27-4·45; P = 0·01; I(2) = 73%). The results of our meta-analysis have provided the best evidence on the efficacy of LLLT in the treatment of TMDs. This study indicates that using LLLT has limited efficacy in reducing pain in patients with TMDs. However, LLLT can significantly improve the functional outcomes of patients with TMDs.
Abstract via Europe PMC. Copyright remains with the authors or publisher.
Community trust
Loading…
How much do you trust this study's findings?
Comments
Sign in to rate, comment on or flag this study.Sign inSomething wrong here?
Flag this study if its information, labels or funding look wrong. An editor reviews every flag.
Sign in to rate, comment on or flag this study.Sign inEducational information about published research. Not medical advice, and not a recommendation to start or stop anything.