Primary study · included by 1 review
Influence of low-level laser therapy on implant stability in implants placed in healed sites: a randomized controlled trial.
Kinalski 2021 · Kinalski Mateus de Azevedo, Agostini Bernardo Antonio, Bergoli Cesar Dalmolin, et al. · International journal of implant dentistry · 2021
Included by
| Outcome this study informs | Pooled effect | Evidence | Certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Implant stability (ISQ): association of energy dose with effect Adjunctive photobiomodulation vs Sham or no photobiomodulation · 12 weeks | meta-regression coefficient -0.076 [-0.295, 0.143] | 6 studies | GRADE not reported |
Implant stability (ISQ) Adjunctive photobiomodulation (laser or LED) vs Sham or no photobiomodulation · 3 weeks | MD 1.95 [-0.31, 4.21] | 4 studies | GRADE not reported |
Implant stability (ISQ) Adjunctive photobiomodulation (laser or LED) vs Sham or no photobiomodulation · baseline | MD 0.02 [-0.96, 1] | 12 studies | GRADE not reported |
Marginal bone loss (mm) Adjunctive photobiomodulation (laser or LED) vs Sham or no photobiomodulation · all time points | MD -0.09 [-0.16, -0.01] | 6 studies | Low |
Marginal bone loss (mm) Adjunctive photobiomodulation (laser or LED) vs Sham or no photobiomodulation · 6 months | MD -0.04 [-0.57, 0.49] | 4 studies | GRADE not reported |
Implant stability (ISQ) Adjunctive photobiomodulation (laser or LED) vs Sham or no photobiomodulation · 2 weeks | MD 1.85 [-0.68, 4.38] | 2 studies | GRADE not reported |
Implant stability (ISQ) Adjunctive photobiomodulation (laser or LED) vs Sham or no photobiomodulation · 9 weeks | MD 1.56 [-4.49, 7.62] | 2 studies | GRADE not reported |
Marginal bone loss (mm) Adjunctive photobiomodulation (laser or LED) vs Sham or no photobiomodulation · 12 weeks | MD -0.16 [-0.26, -0.06] | 2 studies | GRADE not reported |
Marginal bone loss (mm) Adjunctive photobiomodulation (laser or LED) vs Sham or no photobiomodulation · baseline | MD 0 [-0.06, 0.05] | 4 studies | GRADE not reported |
Implant stability (ISQ) Adjunctive photobiomodulation (laser or LED) vs Sham or no photobiomodulation · 6 weeks | MD 2.95 [-0.15, 6.06] | 5 studies | GRADE not reported |
Implant stability (ISQ) Adjunctive photobiomodulation (laser or LED) vs Sham or no photobiomodulation · all time points | MD 1.26 [0.61, 1.91] | 13 studies | Low |
Marginal bone loss (mm) Adjunctive photobiomodulation (laser or LED) vs Sham or no photobiomodulation · 12 months | MD -0.11 [-0.25, 0.03] | 3 studies | GRADE not reported |
Implant stability (ISQ) Adjunctive photobiomodulation (laser or LED) vs Sham or no photobiomodulation · 6 months | MD 1.65 [-0.53, 3.83] | 3 studies | GRADE not reported |
Implant stability (ISQ) Adjunctive photobiomodulation (laser or LED) vs Sham or no photobiomodulation · 7 days | MD 1.43 [-1, 3.86] | 2 studies | GRADE not reported |
Implant stability (ISQ) Adjunctive photobiomodulation (laser or LED) vs Sham or no photobiomodulation · 10 days | MD 2.27 [0.4, 4.13] | 3 studies | GRADE not reported |
Implant stability (ISQ) Adjunctive photobiomodulation (laser or LED) vs Sham or no photobiomodulation · 4 weeks | MD 1.51 [-0.99, 4.02] | 3 studies | GRADE not reported |
Implant stability (ISQ) Adjunctive photobiomodulation (laser or LED) vs Sham or no photobiomodulation · 12 weeks | MD 0.89 [-0.78, 2.55] | 6 studies | GRADE not reported |
1 including review in total.