Question · asked by 1 review

Low‐level laser therapy vs Placebo (or no irradiation): Patient‐reported pain intensity or pain relief (VAS, NRS or categorical scale)

Population
Adolescents and adults undergoing orthodontic treatment
Intervention
Low‐level laser therapy
Comparison
Placebo (or no irradiation)
Outcome
Patient‐reported pain intensity or pain relief (VAS, NRS or categorical scale)

Low‐level laser therapy (LLLT) showed no clear difference in patient‐reported pain intensity or pain relief (VAS, NRS or… compared with placebo (or no irradiation); GRADE not reported.

What each review found

Include earlier review versions
No studies found 0 · 0%GRADE not reported 4 · 80%Very low 0 · 0%Low 1 · 20%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%
FindingEffectStudiesGRADE certainty
Low‐level laser therapy (LLLT) vs Placebo (or no irradiation)
Patient‐reported pain intensity or pain relief (VAS, NRS or categorical scale) · Adolescents and adults undergoing orthodontic treatment · 6 hours
Low‐level laser therapy (LLLT) showed no clear difference in patient‐reported pain intensity or pain relief (VAS, NRS or… compared with placebo (or no irradiation); GRADE not reported.
Non‐pharmacological interventions for alleviating pain during orthodontic treatment (2016) · Cochrane All outcomes
MD -10.63 [-22.33, 1.07]2 studies · 118 participantsGRADE not reported
Low‐level laser therapy (LLLT) vs Placebo (or no irradiation)
Patient‐reported pain intensity or pain relief (VAS, NRS or categorical scale) · Adolescents and adults undergoing orthodontic treatment · 7 days
Low‐level laser therapy (LLLT) led to lower patient‐reported pain intensity or pain relief (VAS, NRS or… compared with placebo (or no irradiation); GRADE not reported.
Non‐pharmacological interventions for alleviating pain during orthodontic treatment (2016) · Cochrane All outcomes
MD -6.39 [-8.65, -4.13]1 study · 58 participantsGRADE not reported
Low‐level laser therapy (LLLT) vs Placebo (or no irradiation)
Patient‐reported pain intensity or pain relief (VAS, NRS or categorical scale) · Adolescents and adults undergoing orthodontic treatment · 6 to 54 hours, Studies using bespoke pain scales
Non‐pharmacological interventions for alleviating pain during orthodontic treatment (2016) · Cochrane All outcomes
Two further studies (160 participants) used bespoke assessments. Harazaki 1997 (84 participants): slightly lower proportion reporting severe pain in the intervention group, no inferential statistics. Turhani 2006 (76…2 studies · 160 participantsGRADE not reported
Low‐level laser therapy (LLLT) vs Placebo (or no irradiation)
Patient‐reported pain intensity or pain relief (VAS, NRS or categorical scale) · Adolescents and adults undergoing orthodontic treatment · 3 days
Low‐level laser therapy (LLLT) led to lower patient‐reported pain intensity or pain relief (VAS, NRS or… compared with placebo (or no irradiation); GRADE not reported.
Non‐pharmacological interventions for alleviating pain during orthodontic treatment (2016) · Cochrane All outcomes
MD -10.76 [-13.80, -7.73]2 studies · 118 participantsGRADE not reported
Low‐level laser therapy (LLLT) vs Placebo (or no irradiation)
Patient‐reported pain intensity or pain relief (VAS, NRS or categorical scale) · Adolescents and adults undergoing orthodontic treatment · 24 hours
Low‐level laser therapy (LLLT) may leads to lower patient‐reported pain intensity or pain relief (VAS, NRS or… compared with placebo (or no irradiation) (low certainty).
Non‐pharmacological interventions for alleviating pain during orthodontic treatment (2016) · Cochrane All outcomes
MD -20.27 [-24.50, -16.04]2 studies · 118 participantsLow

Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.

The reviews

ReviewSearched up toIncluded studiesAMSTAR 2
Non‐pharmacological interventions for alleviating pain during orthodontic treatment
2016 · Cochrane All outcomes
2016-10Not listedNot assessed

The same intervention and outcome, asked in another population or against another comparator.

How reviews are matched to this question

Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.