↓ Skip to main content

Low-level laser therapy for orthodontic pain: a systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in Lasers in Medical Science, September 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (89th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
54 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
97 Mendeley
Title
Low-level laser therapy for orthodontic pain: a systematic review
Published in
Lasers in Medical Science, September 2014
DOI 10.1007/s10103-014-1661-x
Pubmed ID
Authors

F. J. Li, J. Y. Zhang, X. T. Zeng, Y. Guo

Abstract

This review aimed to evaluate the clinical outcome of different lasers management on orthodontic pain. Cochrane Library (Issue 7, 2014) and MEDLINE (1966-2014.7) were searched to collect randomized controlled trials on lasers for orthodontic pain. Studies meeting the inclusion criteria were systematically evaluated. The Cochrane Collaboration tools RevMan5.1.7 and GRADEpro 3.6 were used in this systematic review and meta-analysis. As a result, 11 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) studying on low-level laser therapy (LLLT) for orthodontic pain control were included. Meta-analysis and risk of bias assessment were implemented using RevMan5.1.7, and level of evidence assessments was measured by GRADEpro 3.6. In the outcome of the score of the most painful day, the comparison of laser versus placebo (pain associated with tooth movement) demonstrated that LLLT reduced the pain score significantly compared with placebo groups (MD = -4.39, 95 % CI range -5.9--2.88, P < 0.00001). In the same way, the most painful day was significantly brought forward in laser versus control group (MD = -0.42, 95 % CI range -0.74--0.10, P = 0.009). Furthermore, the outcome of the end of pain day showed a trend of pain termination earlier in laser versus control and placebo groups, but without statistical significance (MD = -1.37, 95 % CI range -3.37-0.64, P = 0.18 and MD = -1.04, 95 % CI range -4.22-2.15, P = 0.52). However, for the reason of downgrade factors, all the GRADE level of evidences of eight comparisons for three outcomes showed a very low quality. Therefore, for the methodological shortcomings and risk of bias of RCTs included, insufficient evidence was submitted to judge whether LLLT was effective in relieving orthodontic pain. Further and more perfect researches should be done in order to recommend LLLT as a routine method for orthodontic pain.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 97 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 1 1%
Unknown 96 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 15 15%
Student > Master 14 14%
Student > Postgraduate 7 7%
Professor 7 7%
Student > Bachelor 6 6%
Other 19 20%
Unknown 29 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 53 55%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 3%
Unspecified 2 2%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 1 1%
Other 3 3%
Unknown 31 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 April 2018.
All research outputs
#5,874,258
of 22,764,165 outputs
Outputs from Lasers in Medical Science
#174
of 1,306 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#61,191
of 252,277 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Lasers in Medical Science
#4
of 39 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,764,165 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,306 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 252,277 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 39 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its contemporaries.