Low-level laser therapy versus 5% amlexanox: a comparison of treatment effects in a cohort of patients with minor aphthous ulcers

Jijin, Mekkadath Jayakrishnan; Rakaraddi, Mangala; Pai, Jagadish; Jaishankar, H. P.; Rangaswamy, Krupashankar; Abraham, Kavitha; Anjana, Ramachandran; Shobha, Raju

doi:10.1016/j.oooo.2015.11.021

Cited by 20 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Of the 23 articles, twelve full-text articles reported nonrandomized controlled clinical trials and one non-English randomized controlled clinical trial were excluded. Ten studies were finally included in the systematic review [34–43]. The inclusion process is shown in Figure 1.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…10 studies were finally included in the systematic review [34–43]. As shown in Table 2, five trials [34–36, 39, 42] were defined as moderate-quality evidence and the remaining five trials [37, 38, 40, 41, 43] were rated as low-quality evidence.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As shown in Table 2, five trials [34–36, 39, 42] were defined as moderate-quality evidence and the remaining five trials [37, 38, 40, 41, 43] were rated as low-quality evidence. The randomized method was clearly described in one study [35], in which patients were randomly allocated by tossing a coin.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The randomized method was clearly described in one study [35], in which patients were randomly allocated by tossing a coin. Blinding was conducted in most of the included trials, but only one study [40] was double-blinded and one study [43] was reported to be nonblinded. Only one study [40] reported allocation concealment, whereas the allocation concealment in the remaining nine trials was unclear.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Three studies [34–36] reported that these trials were without loss to follow-up/withdrawals. The baselines were comparable in six studies [34–38, 40] and the last 4 trials [39, 41–43] were unclear.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Effectiveness of Laser Therapy in the Management of Recurrent Aphthous Stomatitis: A Systematic Review

Han

Fang

et al. 2016

Scientifica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives. Laser therapy is a promising new treatment for patients with recurrent aphthous stomatitis (RAS). However, the clinical effect and security issue of laser therapy remain controversial. This systematic review was conducted to evaluate the clinical effectiveness and security of laser treatment in RAS patients. Methods. Five electronic databases were searched (MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, ScienceDirect, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science) to identify all studies that were about randomized controlled clinical trials, involving the effect of laser therapy in RAS patients. Conclusion. Twenty-three studies were retained for full-text analysis after screening the titles and abstracts of potential articles, but only 10 studies satisfied the inclusion criteria after the full texts were reviewed. The included studies reported a comparison of the effectiveness between the laser treatment and placebo laser therapy (or conventional drug therapy) when managing the RAS patients. It can be concluded that laser therapy has the superiority in relieving ulcer pain and shortening healing time when compared with placebo group or medical treatment group. Although laser therapy is a promising effective treatment for RAS, high-quality clinical studies with large sample size must be further performed to confirm the effectiveness of this therapy.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%