Photobiomodulation Dose Parameters in Dentistry: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Cronshaw M, Parker S, Anagnostaki E, Mylona V, Lynch E, Grootveld M
Dentistry journal · 48 citations
How it was studied
- Design
- Meta-analysis (classified by our AI screen)
- Studied in
- People
- Main outcome
- Health markers and function
Who paid for it
- Funding
- Independent funding
Based on full-text disclosure statement.
Publication
- Published
- 2020-10-06 · Dent J (Basel) · vol. 8 · issue 4 · p. 114
- Publisher
- Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute
- Cited
- 93 citations · more than 91% of similar papers · 2.2× the field average
- Impact
- Top 10% most cited in its field
- References
- 89 works
- Access
- Open access (journal) · CC-BY
- Research areas
- Laser Applications in Dentistry and Medicine · Oral health in cancer treatment · Photodynamic Therapy Research Studies
- Keywords
- Medicine, Mucositis, Clinical trial, Systematic review, Randomized controlled trial, Meta-analysis, MEDLINE, Dentistry, Radiation therapy, Surgery, Internal medicine
6 authors
From GB, US
- Mark Cronshaw · correspondingDe Montfort University; University of Birmingham
- Steven P. A. ParkerDe Montfort University
- Eugenia AnagnostakiDe Montfort University
- Valina MylonaDe Montfort University
- Edward J. LynchUniversity of Nevada, Las Vegas; De Montfort University
- Martin C. GrootveldUniversity of Nevada, Las Vegas; De Montfort University
Abstract
Objective
This systematic review and meta-analysis of published randomized controlled trials examines a possible relationship between optical spot size at surface tissue, irradiance, radiant exposure, total energy delivered, operator technique and reported clinical outcomes.
Background
Clinical photobiomodulation (PBM) therapy has achieved a high level of evidence-based acceptance in the mitigation of oral mucositis associated with cancer radiotherapy and chemotherapy, and supportive clinical research in relation to orthodontic tooth movement, oral medical conditions, including burning mouth syndrome, xerostomia and lichen planus. Inconsistent outcomes have been reported not withstanding a substantial body of primary supportive research from clinical, in vitro and animal studies.
Materials and methods
PubMed, Cochrane Database of Reviews and Google Scholar search engines were applied to identify human clinical trials of PBM therapy in clinical dentistry. A total of 766 articles between February 2009 and June 2020 were identified and following a full text evaluation, 38 papers with sufficient data to permit analyses are included in this investigation.
Results
Following a detailed assessment of potential factors that may have an influence in clinical outcome, a clear trend is apparent associating optical spot size to a positive or negative effect. Furthermore, there is a clear difference in the reported results in relation to total energy applied, delivery techniques and optical parameters, which merits further investigation. Factorial statistical analyses identified an association between smaller optical surface applications and an overall lower level of reported clinical success in treating superficial and deeper targets, and correspondingly sub-surface larger target tissues were found to be more responsive to therapy by use of a larger optical surface spot size. Moreover, use of multiple small diameter probe applications was found to provide inconsistent results.
Conclusions
Many factors can confound clinical success including variations in anatomy, site location, clinical condition and subject individuality. To achieve higher levels of predictable outcome, a mature appreciation of these factors, plus an expanded understanding of laser parametry, tissue volume and target depth to deliver an adequate dose within current recommended guidelines, is essential.
Abstract via Europe PMC. Copyright remains with the authors or publisher (CC BY).
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.