Personal and tailored health care should be provided, and preferences and expectations should be taken into consideration in the provision of health care to the people affected by UI.

AIM: Conducting a systematic review of randomized clinical trials focusing on the efficacy of LLLT on pain control in patients with TMD, diagnosed by the Research Diagnostic Criteria for Temporomandibular Disorders (RDC/TMD). MATERIAL AND METHODS: Search was performed at PubMed/MEDLINE database with the terms: (1) “Laser AND temporomandibular disorders”; (2) “Laser AND temporomandibular disorders AND RDC/TMD”; (3) “Low-level laser therapy AND temporomandibular disorders”; (4) “Low-level laser therapy AND temporomandibular disorders AND RDC/TMD”; (5) “Low-level laser therapy AND temporomandibular joint dysfuntion syndrome”; (6) “Low-level laser therapy AND temporomandibular joint dysfuntion syndrome AND RDC/TMD”; (7) “Laser AND temporomandibular joint dysfuntion syndrome” (8) “Laser AND RDC/TMD”; (9) “Low-level laser therapy AND RDC/TMD”. Inclusion criteria: articles need to be randomized clinical trial performed in humans; evaluate the effect of LLLT in the treatment of TMD diagnosed by the use of RDC/TMD; published in English or Portuguese in the last 10 years. Protocol studies and pilot studies were excluded. RESULTS: Ten studies were included. The type of laser used was Gallium Aluminum Arsenide (GaAlAs) diode, with exception of 1 paper, which used super pulsed Gallium Arsenide laser. Eight studies reported decreased in pain levels, in two articles there was no statistically significant difference between test and placebo groups. CONCLUSION: In most studies, LLLT was effective in pain remission, but there is no standardization in parameters like wavelength, output power and frequency. Studies with more complex experimental designs, standardized diagnostic criteria for TMD and defined protocols for the use of LLLT are needed to determine its efficacy in the treatment of TMD.

Introduction: immobilization is a common option for the treatment of orthopaedic disorders, such as sprains, ligament ruptures, muscle, joint and fracture injuries. But in addition to the beneficial effects, immobilization leads to movement restriction, which can affect bone and muscle composition. Several therapeutic measures have served to remobilization, in this sense, the vibratory platform is an equipment that can provide interesting results in remobilization. Thus, the present study was intended to evaluate the vibratory platform action in the tibial bone tissue of Wistar rats submitted to immobilization. The experimental model used 24 Wistar rats randomly divided into 4 experimental groups: G1 (control group), G2 (immobilized only), G3 (immobilization and free remobilization) and G4 (immobilization and remobilization with vibratory platform). Immobilization caused a reduction in the total area of immobilized bone, but did not produce differences in the area of the spinal canal. For the cortical bone thickness, all the immobilized groups presented a reduction compared to the control, but the group that had the treatment with the vibratory platform resembled the only group immobilized (G2). In the number of osteocytes, there was increase in G3 and G4 when compared to G1 and G2. The protocol of whole body vibration used in this study induced recovery of the cortical bone thickness, with no advantages for the other variables in relation to the free remobilization group.