↓ Skip to main content

Low-level laser therapy effects on pain perception related to the use of orthodontic elastomeric separators

Overview of attention for article published in Dental Press Journal of Orthodontics, June 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
23 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
80 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Low-level laser therapy effects on pain perception related to the use of orthodontic elastomeric separators
Published in
Dental Press Journal of Orthodontics, June 2015
DOI 10.1590/2176-9451.20.3.037-042.oar
Pubmed ID
Authors

Rachel D'Aurea Furquim, Renata Correa Pascotto, José Rino Neto, Jefferson Rosa Cardoso, Adilson Luiz Ramos

Abstract

Some patients refer to pre-banding orthodontic separation as a painful orthodontic procedure. Low-level laser therapy (LLLT) has been reported to have local analgesic effect. The aim of this single-blind study was to investigate the perception of pain caused by orthodontic elastomeric separators with and without a single LLLT application (6J). The sample comprised 79 individuals aged between 13 and 34 years old at orthodontic treatment onset. Elastomeric separators were placed in first maxillary molars at mesial and distal surfaces and kept in place for three days. The volunteers scored pain intensity on a visual analogue scale (VAS) after 6 and 12 hours, and after the first, second and third days. One third of patients received laser applications, whereas another third received placebo applications and the remaining ones were controls. Applications were performed in a split-mouth design. Thus, three groups (laser, placebo and control) were assessed. No differences were found among groups considering pain perception in all periods observed. The use of a single-dose of LLLT did not cause significant reduction in orthodontic pain perception. Overall pain perception due to orthodontic separator placement varied widely and was usually mild.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 80 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 1 1%
Unknown 79 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 17 21%
Student > Postgraduate 10 13%
Student > Bachelor 9 11%
Lecturer 3 4%
Researcher 3 4%
Other 13 16%
Unknown 25 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 44 55%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 5%
Psychology 1 1%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 1%
Physics and Astronomy 1 1%
Other 2 3%
Unknown 27 34%

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 21 April 2017.
All research outputs
#11,059,310
of 12,440,694 outputs
Outputs from Dental Press Journal of Orthodontics
#139
of 213 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#221,940
of 262,429 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Dental Press Journal of Orthodontics
#3
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,440,694 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 213 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 1.5. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% 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 262,429 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.