The effectiveness of photobiomodulation in the management of temporomandibular pain sensitivity in rats: behavioral and neurochemical effects

Improving Extracorporeal Shock Wave Therapy With 904 or 905 NM Pulsed, High Power Laser Pretreatment

“…Furthermore, the same animals had on average statistically significantly fewer neurons immunoreactive for substance P in the right dorsal root ganglion (DRG) L5 (exposed side) than in the left DRG L5 (unexposed side) at W6 post exposure, with no alteration in the mean total number of neurons in this DRG [70]. In contrast, treatment of a rat model of neuropathic pain (chronic constriction injury of the sciatic nerve with increased substance P levels in DRG L4-L6) with laser therapy (904 nm, GaAs laser; peak power, 70 mW; pulse width, 60 ns; frequency, 9500 Hz; 10 treatment sessions; interval between treatment sessions, 2 days; stimulation of nine points lasting 18 seconds each per treatment session) reduced the mean substance P level in DRGs L4-L6 to levels that were found in control animals but not further [71] (similar results were reported in [72]). Together with the fact that exposure of musculoskeletal tissue to ESWs can be very painful, whereas treatment with a 905 nm pulsed, high power laser is usually not painful (A. Ablass, T. Maier, J.P.M.…”

Mitochondrial Bioenergetic, Photobiomodulation and Trigeminal Branches Nerve Damage, What’s the Connection? A Review

“…Among the 13 articles selected [ 34 , 35 , 36 ] ( Supplementary Figure S1 and Table S1 ) using the PRISMA guidelines, none completely comply with the ARRIVE Essential 10, which constitute the recommended guidelines for describing the research context. These studies fail in the accurate inclusion and exclusion criteria.…”

“…These studies fail in the accurate inclusion and exclusion criteria. Additionally, only two works [ 34 , 36 ] described a clear sample size calculation, while in the other articles [ 35 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 ], the authors only stated that “efforts were made to minimise the number of animals used and their suffering in accordance with ethical guidelines for investigations of experimental pain in conscious animals”. All of the experimental setups were approved by the relevant Regional Ethics Committee.…”

“…Unfortunately, many articles [ 34 , 35 , 38 , 40 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 ] showed a high risk of bias due to a lack of randomisation and/or blinding of the procedure and were excluded ( Supplementary Tables S1 and S2 ). Therefore, four articles [ 36 , 37 , 39 , 41 ] ( Table 1 ) were selected, and the work of Diker et al [ 36 ] was given a higher score using the ARRIVE guidelines ( Supplementary Table S1 ).…”

“…Regarding nerve regeneration, as suggested by Diker et al [ 36 ], most of the original studies involve animal sciatic nerves, and only a small number investigated the effects of PBM following the injury of the trigeminal nerve branches. Despite not being included in the review process due to nonadherence to many points of the ARRIVE guidelines, nine comparative research articles [ 34 , 35 , 38 , 40 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 ] using a total of 273 rats showed the effects of PBM at different wavelengths and phototherapy parameters on the regeneration of trigeminal nerve branches, neurosensory recovery and pain. These effects are most likely the consequence of cell physiology modulation, resulting in a decrease in substance P (SP), vanilloid transient potential receptor of subtype-1 (TRPV1), peptide related to the calcitonin gene [ 34 ], matrix metalloproteinases [ 35 ], laminin, myelin protein zero, neurofilaments [ 38 ] and brain-derived neurotrophic factor [ 45 ], and an increase in the nerve growth factor level [ 45 ].…”