| Title |
The effectiveness of low-level diode laser therapy on orthodontic pain management: a systematic review and meta-analysis
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Lasers in Medical Science, March 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10103-015-1743-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Chong Ren, Colman McGrath, Yanqi Yang |
| Abstract |
To assess the effectiveness of diode low-level laser therapy (LLLT) for orthodontic pain control, a systematic and extensive electronic search for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the effects of diode LLLT on orthodontic pain prior to November 2014 was performed using the Cochrane Library (Issue 9, 2014), PubMed (1997), EMBASE (1947) and Web of Science (1956). The Cochrane tool for risk of bias evaluation was used to assess the bias risk in the chosen data. A meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan 5.3. Of the 186 results, 14 RCTs, with a total of 659 participants from 11 countries, were included. Except for three studies assessed as having a 'moderate risk of bias', the RCTs were rated as having a 'high risk of bias'. The methodological weaknesses were mainly due to 'blinding' and 'allocation concealment'. The meta-analysis showed that diode LLLT significantly reduced orthodontic pain by 39 % in comparison with placebo groups (P = 0.02). Diode LLLT was shown to significantly reduce the maximum pain intensity among parallel-design studies (P = 0.003 versus placebo groups; P = 0.000 versus control groups). However, no significant effects were shown for split-mouth-design studies (P = 0.38 versus placebo groups). It was concluded that the use of diode LLLT for orthodontic pain appears promising. However, due to methodological weaknesses, there was insufficient evidence to support or refute LLLT's effectiveness. RCTs with better designs and appropriate sample power are required to provide stronger evidence for diode LLLT's clinical applications. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 1 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 1 | 50% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 120 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 120 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 20 | 17% |
| Student > Bachelor | 17 | 14% |
| Researcher | 10 | 8% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 8 | 7% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 8 | 7% |
| Other | 18 | 15% |
| Unknown | 39 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 65 | 54% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 4% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 4 | 3% |
| Environmental Science | 1 | <1% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | <1% |
| Other | 3 | 3% |
| Unknown | 41 | 34% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 8. 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
#4,017,171
of 22,796,179 outputs
Outputs from Lasers in Medical Science
#80
of 1,307 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#51,015
of 263,362 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Lasers in Medical Science
#3
of 33 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,796,179 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 82nd percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,307 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% 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 263,362 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 80% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 33 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.