Non-Cochrane · intervention · PM42782975
The Effect of Photobiomodulation Therapy in the Treatment of Postoperative Pain After Impacted Third Lower Molar Extraction: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis.
Mauriello Leopoldo, Pezzella Vitolante, Blasi Andrea, et al. · Dentistry journal · 2026 · PubMed · doi:10.3390/dj14090588
Findings
Population Patients undergoing impacted mandibular third molar extraction
3 findings
| Intraoral photobiomodulation, with or without extraoral irradiation | Sham or placebo laser | Postoperative pain, visual analog scale 48 hours | SMD -0.82 [-1.64, -0.01] Low Downgraded: imprecision, inconsistency 2 studies |
| Intraoral photobiomodulation, with or without extraoral irradiation | Sham or placebo laser | Postoperative pain, visual analog scale 72 hours | SMD -1.11 [-1.38, -0.84] Moderate 2 studies |
| Intraoral photobiomodulation, with or without extraoral irradiation | Sham or placebo laser | Postoperative pain, visual analog scale 24 hours | SMD -0.64 [-0.90, -0.38] Moderate 2 studies |
Included primary studies 8
Open in Studies| Study | Year | Also included by | Outcomes it informs here | Trial data |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Camolesi 2025 PAIN, OEDEMA AND TRISMUS RESPONSES FOLLOWING PHOTOBIOMODULATION THERAPY IMMEDIATELY AFTER LOWER THIRD MOLAR EXTRACTION: RESULTS OF A… PMID:39947773 | 2025 | this review only | Postoperative pain, visual analog scale | not extracted yet |
| Farhadi 2017 Evaluation of adjunctive effect of low-level laser Therapy on pain, swelling and trismus after surgical removal of impacted lower third… PMID:29133965 | 2017 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Ferrante 2013 Effect of low-level laser therapy after extraction of impacted lower third molars. PMID:22843310 | 2013 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Momeni 2021 Low-level laser therapy using laser diode 940 nm in the mandibular impacted third molar surgery: double-blind randomized clinical trial. PMID:33602198 | 2021 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Neelofar 2022 Efficacy of Low Level Laser Therapy in Reducing Pain, Swelling and Trismus Following Impacted Third Molar Extraction Surgery: A… DOI:10.7860/jcdr/2022/55209.16673 | 2022 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Pérez 2025 Effect of Photobiomodulation on the Control of Edema and Pain After Third Molar Surgery: Double-Blinded Randomized Clinical Trial. PMID:40490024 | 2025 | this review only | Postoperative pain, visual analog scale | not extracted yet |
| Sekerci 2025 Is Low-Level Laser Treatment Effective in Reducing Pain, Swelling, and Trismus After Removing Impacted Maxillary and Mandibular Third… PMID:40252691 | 2025 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Uzeda 2025 Evaluating the effectiveness of low-level laser therapy in patients undergoing lower third molar extraction: A double-blinded randomized… PMID:39582408 | 2025 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
Review question
| Element | Planned (methods) | Found (results) |
|---|---|---|
| Population | Patients undergoing surgical extraction of an impacted mandibular third molar | Patients with impacted mandibular third molar extraction; 9 to 83 patients per trial (n=8) |
| Intervention | Intraoral laser/PBM in the peri- or postoperative period, any wavelength or laser type; exclusively extraoral application excluded | Mostly diode lasers (550-980 nm), intraoral alone or combined with extraoral irradiation, single or repeated sessions (n=8) |
| Comparison | Standard postoperative care, placebo/sham laser, or no treatment | Sham/placebo laser, non-laser control or standard postoperative care (n=8) |
| Outcomes | Postoperative pain measured only by VAS within the first 7 days; VAS at 24, 48 and 72 h (mean and SD) for meta-analysis | Postoperative pain VAS (n=8); pooled VAS at 24, 48 and 72 h (n=2) |
| Study designs | RCTs published as full texts; multi-arm trials eligible if one comparison matched the PICO | RCTs, mostly split-mouth (n=8); both pooled trials split-mouth (n=2) |
| Timing | Within 7 days after surgery; pooled at 24, 48 and 72 h | 24 h to 7 days; pooled at 24, 48 and 72 h |
AMSTAR 2 items
Two independent extractors rated each item. Their ratings are shown side by side because they have not been reconciled yet. The overall rating follows Shea et al. 2017: one critical flaw gives Low, more than one gives Critically Low.
| Item | Extractor A | Extractor B | Agree |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1Research question includes PICO components | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 2Protocol established before the reviewcritical | Partial Yes | Partial Yes | yes |
| 3Choice of study designs explained | No | No | yes |
| 4Comprehensive literature searchcritical | Partial Yes | Partial Yes | yes |
| 5Study selection in duplicate | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 6Data extraction in duplicate | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 7List of excluded studies with reasonscritical | No | No | yes |
| 8Included studies described in detail | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 9Risk of bias assessed satisfactorilycritical | RCT: Yes · NRSI: N/A | NRSI: N/A · RCT: Yes | no |
| 10Funding of included studies reported | No | No | yes |
| 11Appropriate meta-analysis methodscritical | RCT: Yes · NRSI: N/A | NRSI: N/A · RCT: No | no |
| 12Impact of risk of bias on the pooled results | No | No | yes |
| 13Risk of bias accounted for in interpretationcritical | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 14Heterogeneity explained | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 15Publication bias investigatedcritical | No | No | yes |
| 16Conflicts of interest reported | Yes | Yes | yes |
| Overall | Critically Low | Critically Low | yes |