Primary study · included by 1 review

Hamed 2013

ProbableThe reviews cited this study without a PMID, DOI or NCT, so it is matched by first author and year. Two different studies by the same author in the same year could be merged here.

Included by

Photobiomodulation in Dental Implant Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Non-Cochrane · intervention · 2026 · cited as Hamed 2013 · Reference 28; Figure 4b

Outcome this study informs	Pooled effect	Evidence	Certainty
Peri-implant bone density (2D radiography, grayscale) Adjunctive photobiomodulation (laser or LED) vs Sham or no photobiomodulation · baseline	MD -0.38 [-6.62, 5.85]	2 studies	GRADE not reported
Peri-implant bone density (2D radiography, grayscale) Adjunctive photobiomodulation (laser or LED) vs Sham or no photobiomodulation · 4 weeks	MD 5.3 [-8.12, 18.72]	1 study · 11 participants	GRADE not reported
Peri-implant bone density (2D radiography, grayscale) Adjunctive photobiomodulation (laser or LED) vs Sham or no photobiomodulation · 6 weeks	MD 7.47 [-7.34, 22.28]	1 study · 18 participants	GRADE not reported
Peri-implant bone density (2D radiography, grayscale) Adjunctive photobiomodulation (laser or LED) vs Sham or no photobiomodulation · 12 weeks	MD 15.7 [-3.4, 34.8]	1 study · 11 participants	GRADE not reported
Peri-implant bone density (2D radiography, grayscale) Adjunctive photobiomodulation (laser or LED) vs Sham or no photobiomodulation · 6 months	MD 24.19 [0.89, 47.48]	2 studies	GRADE not reported
Peri-implant bone density (2D radiography, grayscale) Adjunctive photobiomodulation (laser or LED) vs Sham or no photobiomodulation · all time points	MD 9.82 [1.08, 18.56]	2 studies	Very low

1 including review in total.