evidencegaps
Primary study · included by 2 reviews

The effects of a clinically feasible application of low-level laser therapy on the rate of orthodontic tooth movement: A triple-blind, split-mouth, randomized controlled trial

Mistry 2020 · Mistry Dipika, Dalci Oyku, Papageorgiou Spyridon N., et al. · American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics · 2020

Included by

The Effectiveness of Physical Adjunctive Interventions in the Acceleration of Orthodontic Tooth Movement: An Umbrella Review and Meta-Analysis.
Non-Cochrane · intervention · 2026 · cited as Mistry 2020 · Supporting Information Table S5

The review does not say which of its outcomes this study informs.

Effectiveness of Physical Methods in Accelerating Upper Canine Retraction: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Non-Cochrane · intervention · 2026 · cited as Mistry 2020 · Table 3; Table 4; Figure 4/6
Outcome this study informsPooled effectEvidenceCertainty
Anchorage loss (mm)
Low-level laser therapy vs Standard orthodontic canine retraction without acceleration · 2 to 7 months follow-up
MD -0.16 [-0.48, 0.17]3 studies · 116 participantsLow
Canine rotation (degrees)
Low-level laser therapy vs Standard orthodontic canine retraction without acceleration · 2 to 7 months follow-up
MD 1.48 [-2.48, 5.43]2 studies · 72 participantsModerate
Rate of upper canine retraction (mm/month)
Low-level laser therapy vs Standard orthodontic canine retraction without acceleration · 2 to 7 months follow-up
MD 0.26 [0.13, 0.39]7 studies · 242 participantsLow
Rate of upper canine retraction (mm/month)
Low-level laser therapy vs Standard orthodontic canine retraction without acceleration · 2 to 7 months follow-up
MD 0.43 [0.12, 0.74]10 studies · 346 participantsGRADE not reported

2 including reviews in total.