A comparative evaluation of the effectiveness of low-level laser therapy, ultrasound therapy, and transcutaneous electric nerve stimulation in the treatment of patients with TMDs: a prospective study

Budakoti, Akansha; Puri, Neelu; Dhillon, Manu; Ahuja, Upasana Sethi; Rathore, Akshay; Choudhary, Anuridhi; Kour, Manmeet

doi:10.1007/s41547-019-00073-8

Cited by 10 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Budakoti. et al 28 evaluated the effectiveness of LLLT, therapeutic ultrasound and TENS. LLLT was found to be most effective in a more rapid and long-lasting pain reduction in the management of TMD.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…After careful full-text screening and assessment of the risk of bias, 27 RCTs met the inclusion criteria. [7][8][9]11,13,25,[28][29][30][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52] The selection process and exclusion reasons were presented in the flow chart (Figure 1). These studies, published between 2006 and 2021, included 969 TMD patients consisted of 463(47.78%) for LLLT, 153(15.79%) for TENS, and 353(36.43%) for placebo.…”

Section: Study Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Of 969 participants, 546 were women, and 301 were unclear. The search results contained 26 direct comparisons immediately after treatment, [7][8][9]11,13,25,[28][29][30][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][50][51][52] in which two were L1 versus placebo, 13 were L2 versus placebo, two were L3 versus placebo, three were TENS versus placebo, one was L1 versus L2, one was L1 versus TENS, one was L2 versus TENS, two were L3 versus TENS, and one was L2 versus TENS versus placebo. Then, the one-month follow-up network contained nine RCTs, 7,9,29,[42][43][44][47][48][49] including seven L2 comparisons with placebo, one L3 comparison with placebo, and one comparison with L2, TENS and placebo.…”

Section: Study Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…26 Several RCTs compared the efficiency of LLLT and TENS for treating TMD patients with conflicting results. 7,11,12,[27][28][29][30] Until now, no systematic reviews on LLLT and TENS for TMD treatment have been reported. Although the two treatment options appear to be superior to placebo in alleviating pain, there is insufficient evidence to suggest the relative efficacy.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Comparative effectiveness of low‐level laser therapy with different wavelengths and transcutaneous electric nerve stimulation in the treatment of pain caused by temporomandibular disorders: A systematic review and network meta‐analysis

Ren

Liu

et al. 2021

J of Oral Rehabilitation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To assess the efficacy of low-level laser therapy (LLLT) with different wavelengths and transcutaneous electric nerve stimulation (TENS) and explore the optimal wavelength range of laser application in the treatment of pain caused by temporomandibular disorders (TMD).Methods: An electronic search on PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, Scopus and Web of Science was undertaken to identify the randomised clinical trials (RCTs) published from database inception to 16 April 2021, aiming to compare the effects of LLLT with different wavelengths (632.8-672 nm, 780-904 nm, and 910-1100 nm) or TENS or placebo group on TMD patients pain reduction. In addition, manual search of the studies was performed. The reviewers assessed the risk of bias of individual studies with the Cochrane risk of bias tool and excluded the RCTs with a high risk of bias in any field. Meanwhile, the reviewers, after performing the network metaanalysis, assessed the quality of evidence, which contributed to network estimate via the GRADE framework.Results: Twenty-seven RCTs with 969 patients with TMD were included. In the meta-analysis, all treatment groups showed an overall improvement in pain scores, when compared with the placebo group. LLLT with wavelength ranging from 910 nm to 1100 nm produced more pain relief in the visual analogue scale (VAS) immediately after treatment [mean difference (MD) = 4.68, 95% confidence interval (CI):(3.08,6.28)]. After one-month follow-up, LLLT with wavelength ranging from 910 nm to 1100 nm also showed superior pain-relieving effects [MD = 3.61, 95% CI: (−1.77, 8.99)]. However, no significant difference was observed. Based on the SUCRA ranking, L3 ranked first immediately after treatment and 1 month later. Conclusion:The results of the meta-analysis showed the LLLT had better short-term efficacy than TENS in the treatment of pain caused by TMD. Better results can be achieved with higher wavelengths. Therefore, we recommended to treat TMD using LLLT with wavelength ranging from 910 nm to 1100 nm.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Study Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Study Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Comparative effectiveness of low‐level laser therapy with different wavelengths and transcutaneous electric nerve stimulation in the treatment of pain caused by temporomandibular disorders: A systematic review and network meta‐analysis

Ren

Liu

et al. 2021

J of Oral Rehabilitation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Twenty-eight studies used transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation as therapy and evaluated pain intensity. [36][37][38]40,[48][49][50][51][52]54,55,[57][58][59][60]62,63,[65][66][67][68][69]71,[73][74][75][76][77] Among these 28 trials, 13 36,38,40,48,50,54,57,59,63,65,68,69,75 included patients with myogenous temporomandibular disorders (myogenic temporomandibular disorders, facial myalgia, and myofascial pain). Of those, four reported that transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation was better than home exercise, 65 laser, 50 splint, 68 and a waiting list 36 ; however, six reported that dental program, 57 ultrasound, 48,…”

Section: Effectiveness Of Intervention By Type Of Currentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effectiveness of electrotherapy for the treatment of orofacial pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective Summarize the evidence from randomized controlled trials and controlled trials that examined the effectiveness of electrotherapy in the treatment of patients with orofacial pain. Data Source Medline, Embase, CINAHL PLUS with Full text, Cochrane Library Trials, Web of Science, and Scopus. Review Methods A data search (last update, July 1, 2022) and a manual search were performed (October 5, 2022). Trials involving adults with orofacial pain receiving electrotherapy compared with any other type of treatment were included. The main outcome was pain intensity; secondary outcomes were mouth opening and tenderness. The reporting was based on the new PRISMA Guidelines. Results From the electronics databases and manual search 43 studies were included. Although this study was open to including any type of orofacial pain, only studies that investigated temporomandibular disorders were found. The overall quality of the evidence for pain intensity was very low. Although the results should be carefully used, transcutaneous electric nerve stimulation therapy showed to be clinically superior to placebo for reducing pain after treatment (2.63 [−0.48; 5.74]) and at follow-up (0.96 [−0.02; 1.95]) and reduce tenderness after treatment (1.99 [−0.33; 4.32]) and at follow-up (2.43 [−0.24; 5.10]) in subjects with mixed temporomandibular disorders. Conclusion The results of this systematic review support the use of transcutaneous electric nerve stimulation therapy for patients with mixed temporomandibular disorders to improve pain intensity, and tenderness demonstrating that transcutaneous electric nerve stimulation is superior to placebo. There is inconsistent evidence supporting the superiority of transcutaneous electric nerve stimulation against other therapies.

show abstract

Comparison of therapeutic effects of 940 nm diode laser acupuncture with transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation in the myofascial pain dysfunction syndrome: a comparative randomized clinical trial

Palizgir,

Najafi,

Modiri

et al. 2023

Lasers Med Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A comparative evaluation of the effectiveness of low-level laser therapy, ultrasound therapy, and transcutaneous electric nerve stimulation in the treatment of patients with TMDs: a prospective study

Cited by 10 publications

References 27 publications

Comparative effectiveness of low‐level laser therapy with different wavelengths and transcutaneous electric nerve stimulation in the treatment of pain caused by temporomandibular disorders: A systematic review and network meta‐analysis

Comparative effectiveness of low‐level laser therapy with different wavelengths and transcutaneous electric nerve stimulation in the treatment of pain caused by temporomandibular disorders: A systematic review and network meta‐analysis

Effectiveness of electrotherapy for the treatment of orofacial pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Comparison of therapeutic effects of 940 nm diode laser acupuncture with transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation in the myofascial pain dysfunction syndrome: a comparative randomized clinical trial

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About