To assess the effectiveness of diode low-level laser therapy (LLLT) for orthodontic pain control, a systematic and extensive electronic search for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the effects of diode LLLT on orthodontic pain prior to November 2014 was performed using the Cochrane Library (Issue 9, 2014), PubMed (1997), EMBASE (1947) and Web of Science (1956). The Cochrane tool for risk of bias evaluation was used to assess the bias risk in the chosen data. A meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan 5.3. Of the 186 results, 14 RCTs, with a total of 659 participants from 11 countries, were included. Except for three studies assessed as having a ‘moderate risk of bias’, the RCTs were rated as having a ‘high risk of bias’. The methodological weaknesses were mainly due to ‘blinding’ and ‘allocation concealment’. The meta-analysis showed that diode LLLT significantly reduced orthodontic pain by 39 % in comparison with placebo groups (P = 0.02). Diode LLLT was shown to significantly reduce the maximum pain intensity among parallel-design studies (P = 0.003 versus placebo groups; P = 0.000 versus control groups). However, no significant effects were shown for split-mouth-design studies (P = 0.38 versus placebo groups). It was concluded that the use of diode LLLT for orthodontic pain appears promising. However, due to methodological weaknesses, there was insufficient evidence to support or refute LLLT’s effectiveness. RCTs with better designs and appropriate sample power are required to provide stronger evidence for diode LLLT’s clinical applications.

Background and ObjectivesAlthough low‐level laser therapy (LLLT) has been demonstrated to have a biomodulatory effect on periodontal tissue, no systematic review has exclusively addressed its effectiveness as an adjunct to non‐surgical periodontal treatment. This study aimed to evaluate whether an additional benefit exists for the application of LLLT compared with scaling and root planing (SRP) alone.Material and MethodsAn extensive search was conducted in the Cochrane Library (Issue 8, 2015), PubMed (1997) and EMBASE (1947) before August 2015 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs). The bias risk was assessed with the Cochrane tool for risk of bias evaluation. A meta‐analysis was performed using REVMAN 5.3.ResultsAfter independent screening of 354 initial records, eight publications (seven RCTs) were included. However, six were rated as ‘having a high risk of bias’ as a result of major methodological weakness in ‘allocation concealment’ and ‘blinding of key personnel’. Meta‐analysis showed that LLLT‐mediated SRP demonstrated significant short‐term benefits over SRP monotherapy in the improvement of the probing pocket depth (p = 0.0009 at 1 mo; p = 0.03 at 2 mo) and the level of interleukin‐1β in the gingival crevicular fluid (p = 0.01 at 1 mo). Nevertheless, LLLT failed to show significant additional intermediate‐term (3 and 6 mo) effects in terms of clinical parameters and alveolar bone density.ConclusionThese findings indicated that LLLT showed only short‐term additional benefits after conventional SRP. Its long‐term effects remain unclear due to substantial methodological weaknesses and an insufficient number of current studies. Future RCTs with better designs and longer follow‐up periods are required to assess the effectiveness of LLLT as an adjunctive treatment strategy in patients with periodontal disease.

The estimated prevalence of edentulism and the identified associated factors will provide epidemiologic evidence for future research and interventions in the target population in China.