Este artigo está licenciado sob forma de uma licença Creative Commons Atribuição 4.0 Internacional, que permite uso irrestrito, distribuição e reprodução em qualquer meio, desde que a publicação original seja corretamente citada. ABSTRACT AIMS: To evaluate the effect of light emitting diode (LED) therapy on temporomandibular disorder. CASE DESCRIPTION: A woman diagnosed with temporomandibular disorder was subjected to four LED therapy sessions at a seven-day interval. In the initial examination of the temporomandibular joint the patient presented a mouth opening without pain of 23 mm, a maximum opening of 25 mm and a maximum opening with the aid of 27 mm. After the treatment, there was an increase of 7 mm in the opening without pain between the first and last evaluation, while the maximum opening of the mouth and the maximum opening with aid increased 6 mm between the first and last evaluation. After 21 days of treatment, a 50% reduction in painful sites was detected on the palpation examination.After the end of the treatment, the visual analog pain scale detected a decrease in pain intensity on both sides, and there was a decrease in the total mean pain intensity. By analyzing the responses to the Medical Outcomes Study 36-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36), of the eight quality of life domains evaluated, four showed improvement. CONCLUSIONS: In this case study, after LED therapy there was reduction in pain intensity and increase of the mandibular range of motion. The resolution of the signs and symptoms of temporomandibular disorder resulted in patient's better quality of life.KEY WORDS: temporomandibular joint dysfunction syndrome; phototherapy; low-level light therapy.

Objective: The need to quantify pain and quality of life (QoL) is essential for professionals considering their therapeutic approach. The goal of this review is to identify the methods to perform qualitative and quantitative analysis of pain and QoL validated in Brazil. Methods: Review by the LILACS, SciELO, MedLine and Google Scholar databases with the descriptors: methods, qualitative analysis, quantitative analysis, pain and quality of life. Inclusion criteria: articles published in Portuguese and in English in the period from 1996 to 2015. Exclusion criteria: incomplete texts, articles that did not address the subject of study and duplicate articles in the databases. Results: After applying the eligibility criteria, 27 articles were selected for reading, being that one article was excluded by presenting irrelevant result and another was excluded by duplication. From the 25 articles, one was published in 2015, three in 2014, one in 2013, three in 2012, five in 2011, two in 2010, three in 2009, four in 2008, two in 2004 and one in 1996. In relation to the studies, nine were clinical trials, 10 systematic reviews, five cross-sectional studies and one essay. Conclusion The most frequently methods applied are the VAS and the McGill’s Questionnaire, considering the multidimensional pain assessment. The most commonly used questionnaire to evaluate QoL is the SF-36. There is great difficulty to classify methods for assessing pain and QoL (qualitative or quantitative methods), since many authors report the same method when addressing the two interfaces.

Resumo