| Title |
Laser for bone healing after oral surgery: systematic review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Lasers in Medical Science, December 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10103-017-2400-x |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Claudio Noba, Anna Carolina Volpi Mello-Moura, Thais Gimenez, Tamara Kerber Tedesco, Cacio Moura-Netto |
| Abstract |
The purpose of this study is to perform a systematic review on the use of lasers in oral surgery for bone healing. Selection of articles was carried out by two evaluators in Pubmed and Web of Science databases for published articles and OpenGray for gray literature. Search strategy was developed based on the PICO Question "Does the use of lasers after oral surgery improve bone healing?". Eligibility criteria were: being on laser; evaluate bone healing; involve oral surgery; do not be about implant, periodontics, orthodontics, osteonecrosis or radiotherapy, nor revisions, clinical cases, etc. Data were collected from each article in a structured spreadsheet and a descriptive analysis was performed. Risk assessment of bias of the articles was carried out through the tool elaborated by the Cochrane collaboration. A total of 827 potentially relevant references were identified. No articles were found in OpenGray. Eleven articles met the eligibility criteria and were included in the systematic review. Most of studies were in vivo and in jaw, being conducted with low-power lasers which were applied immediately after the surgical procedure of extraction. Neoformation and bone density were the outcomes of choice and there was a tendency of increase in bone density, neoformation, regeneration, mineralization, or bone condensation when laser was applied. Regarding the bias risk assessment, studies were not clear in reporting most of the parameters. Low-power laser therapy seems to reduce time of bone healing in oral surgery, although there are no defined protocols and the level of evidence is still considered weak. |
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.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Côte d'Ivoire | 1 | 33% |
| Netherlands | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 67% |
| Scientists | 1 | 33% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 108 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 108 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 19 | 18% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 11 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 9% |
| Researcher | 9 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 6% |
| Other | 20 | 19% |
| Unknown | 33 | 31% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 53 | 49% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 4 | 4% |
| Unspecified | 2 | 2% |
| Engineering | 2 | 2% |
| Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 7 | 6% |
| Unknown | 39 | 36% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 15 May 2018.
All research outputs
#17,409,624
of 25,543,275 outputs
Outputs from Lasers in Medical Science
#727
of 1,411 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#280,348
of 445,959 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Lasers in Medical Science
#23
of 40 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,543,275 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 21st percentile – i.e., 21% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,411 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.4. This one is in the 36th percentile – i.e., 36% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 445,959 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 27th percentile – i.e., 27% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 40 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.