Efficacy of low-level laser therapy in temporomandibular disorders: A systematic review

Shukla, Deepankar; Muthusekhar,

doi:10.4103/0975-5950.196127

Cited by 48 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The improvement in mandibular movements in the group treated with laser could not be attributed to its recognized analgesic effect as claimed by Núñez et al 32 . The observed improvement in mandibular movements (MIO) in the current study is in accordance with those of other studies [33][34][35] . Variability within individuals might be reflect the effect of psychological factors, such as the desire to feel better which may have influenced physiological processes thereby resulting in the desired outcome.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Dextrose Prolotherapy versus Low Level Laser Therapy (LLLT) for Management of Temporomandibular Joint Disorders (TMD): Clinical Randomized controlled Study

Hassanien

Kamel

Rashed

2020

Egyptian Dental Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To compare the effects of dextrose prolotherapy and low level laser therapy in terms of the pain (VAS) and maximum interincisal opening (MIO) in treatment of temporomandibular disorders. Patients and Methods:Twenty patients (10 males & 10 females) with temporomandibular disorders TMD participated in this clinical trial. All patients were randomly divided into two equal groups. In dextrose group; 12.5% Dextrose was injected into 3 targeted areas, the posterior joint space, the anterior disc attachment and superior attachment of masseter muscle. Dextrose prolotherapy was performed at 2 weeks, and 4 weeks intervals. In laser group; semi conductive (diode) gallium arsenide (Ga As) laser was utilized in this study. The therapeutic LLLT application was performed 3 times per week for four consecutive weeks. The primary outcome measure was the severity of the pain at rest assessed with visual analogue scale (0-10 cm). The secondary outcome measure was Maximum interincisal opening (MIO). All the evaluations in both groups were done at baseline, 2 weeks, and 4 weeks subsequent to the treatment.Results :The results demonstrated insignificant difference between the means of dextrose prolotherapy and laser groups in terms of VAS (at rest), MIO degree values before treatment (base line) (p>0.05). When the changes in the groups after treatment were compared, there was no significant difference between the means of dextrose and laser groups regarding VAS (at rest) after 2 weeks and 4 weeks (p-value>0.05). However, there was a statistical significant difference (P-value = 0.001) between the means of both groups regarding MIO after 2 weeks and 4 weeks (P-value <0.001). The improvement in maximum interincisal opening was greater in the group that submit to dextrose prolotherapy in comparison to the laser group (p<0.05). Conclusions:In temporomandibular disorders dextrose prolotherapy is more efficient in improving maximum interincisal opening in comparison to low level laser therapy. However, both treatments have the same effect in reducing pain at rest. KEY WORDS:Temporomandibular disorders, Low level laser therapy, Dextrose prolotherapy (96) Nermeen Hassanien, et al.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Dextrose Prolotherapy versus Low Level Laser Therapy (LLLT) for Management of Temporomandibular Joint Disorders (TMD): Clinical Randomized controlled Study

Hassanien

Kamel

Rashed

2020

Egyptian Dental Journal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…18 Literature reviews usually indicate that LLLT is effective in reducing pain in TMDs mostly through its anti-inflammatory effects. 15,16,19 However, a systematic review in 2012 concluded no definitive results could be drawn on the efficacy of LLLT in the treatment of TMDs except that it was probably more effective in the treatment of TMJ disorders and less effective in masticatory muscle disorders. 20 Therefore, the relative clinical efficacy of LLLT in the treatment of TMD is controversial and sufficient evidence is lacking regarding its benefits in MPDS.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Efficacy of Low-Level Laser, Hard Occlusal Appliance and Conventional Pharmacotherapy in the Management of Myofascial Pain Dysfunction Syndrome; A Preliminary Study

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Myofascial pain dysfunction syndrome (MPDS) is a common temporomandibular joint disorder. Due to its multifactorial etiology, treatment usually involves more than one modality to obtain complementary results. The purpose of this study was to compare the combined effect of a low-level laser, a hard occlusal appliance, and conventional pharmacotherapy with pharmacotherapy only in the management of patients with MPDS. Methods: In this study, 15 patients with MPDS were diagnosed and randomly assigned to 3 groups (n=5). Subjects in Group 1 were treated with pharmacotherapy (PT); Group 2 received the diode laser (940 nm gallium arsenide) every other day for a total of 10 sessions, plus pharmacotherapy (PTL) and Group 3 were given hard occlusal splint 12 h/day for 4 weeks, plus pharmacotherapy (PTO). The intensity of pain was measured using the visual analog scale (VAS) prior to the treatment, 2 and 4 weeks after the onset of treatment and 2 weeks later. The maximum painless mouth opening and pain intensity at muscle palpation were also recorded. Comparisons were made between the groups via repeated measure analysis of variance (ANOVA) (P<0.05). Results: Pain relief in the subjective VAS was observed in both laser and appliance groups in the third and fourth examination sessions (P<0.05). No statistically significant reduction in pain was noted using pharmacotherapy only. The maximum painless mouth opening and muscle tenderness were not significantly different between the 3 groups (P>0.05). Conclusion: Both the laser and the occlusal appliance combined with pharmacotherapy proved to be effective for pain reduction in patients with MPDS. All groups, however, failed to result in a significant improvement in the maximum mouth opening or tenderness in masticatory muscles.

show abstract

“…Moreover, they demonstrated that vascular invasion of bone marrow tissue into the Journal of Dentistry Indonesia 2018, Vol. 25,No. 3,[135][136][137][138][139][140][141] subchondral bone induced the synthesis of matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs) that caused disintegration of the adjacent cartilage.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This is low-level laser (LLL) therapy, which is a conservative and supportive physical therapy that has anti-inflammatory effects and can treat OA of the TMJ (i.e., TMJ-OA). 3 To date, assessment of the anti-inflammatory effects of LLL therapy in clinical studies has only been subjective and based on the induction of pain rather than on the objective evaluation of inflammation. 4 Consequently, there is a need for more objective and controlled studies to determine the effects of LLL therapy on inflammation in TMJ structures.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of Low-Level Laser versus Intra-Articular Corticosteroid Therapy for Temporomandibular Joint Corticosteroid Therapy for Temporomandibular Joint Osteoarthritis in Rats Osteoarthritis in Rat

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Osteoarthritis (OA) is an increasingly common deteriorating disorder of the temporomandibular joint (TMJ) for which there is an urgent need to improve the prevention and cure. Objectives: We aimed to compare low-level laser (LLL) against corticosteroids as an alternative treatment for TMJ-OA. Methods: Sixty rats with TMJ-OA were divided into OA (untreated), corticosteroid-treated, and LLL-treated groups. Animals were sacrificed at 1 and 4 weeks after treatment, and their TMJs were dissected for evaluation by histological analysis, histochemical analysis, and quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction. Statistical comparison was conducted using oneway analysis of variance. Results: Histopathological examination revealed degenerative changes and loss of normal architecture in the untreated OA group and that these changes were decreased in both treatment groups. In histochemical analysis, collagen formation was higher in both treated groups than in the untreated group. Finally, tumor necrosis factor-α level was the highest in the OA group, followed by the corticosteroid-and LLL-treated groups. Conclusion: LLL may improve joint OA in the TMJ to a similar extent to corticosteroids and appears to have superior anti-inflammatory effects in the short-term.

show abstract

Efficacy of low-level laser therapy in temporomandibular disorders: A systematic review

Cited by 48 publications

References 14 publications

Dextrose Prolotherapy versus Low Level Laser Therapy (LLLT) for Management of Temporomandibular Joint Disorders (TMD): Clinical Randomized controlled Study

Dextrose Prolotherapy versus Low Level Laser Therapy (LLLT) for Management of Temporomandibular Joint Disorders (TMD): Clinical Randomized controlled Study

Efficacy of Low-Level Laser, Hard Occlusal Appliance and Conventional Pharmacotherapy in the Management of Myofascial Pain Dysfunction Syndrome; A Preliminary Study

Comparison of Low-Level Laser versus Intra-Articular Corticosteroid Therapy for Temporomandibular Joint Corticosteroid Therapy for Temporomandibular Joint Osteoarthritis in Rats Osteoarthritis in Rat

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About