-
Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) Jan 2019Background and o: Oral mucositis is one of the main adverse events of cancer treatment with chemotherapy or radiation therapy. It presents as erythema, atrophy or/and...
Background and o: Oral mucositis is one of the main adverse events of cancer treatment with chemotherapy or radiation therapy. It presents as erythema, atrophy or/and ulceration of oral mucosa. It occurs in almost all patients, who receive radiation therapy of the head and neck area and from 20% to 80% of patients who receive chemotherapy. There are few clinical trials in the literature proving any kind of treatment or prevention methods to be effective. Therefore, the aim of this study is to perform systematic review of literature and examine the most effective treatment and prevention methods for chemotherapy or/and radiotherapy induced oral mucositis. : Clinical human trials, published from 1 January 2007 to 31 December 2017 in English, were included in this systematic review of literature. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA) protocol was followed while planning, providing objectives, selecting studies and analyzing data for this systematic review. "MEDLINE" and "PubMed Central" databases were used to search eligible clinical trials. Clinical trials researching medication, oral hygiene, cryotherapy or laser therapy efficiency in treatment or/and prevention of oral mucositis were included in this systematic review. : Results of the studies used in this systematic review of literature showed that laser therapy, cryotherapy, professional oral hygiene, antimicrobial agents, Royal jelly, L. brevis lozenges, Zync supplementation and Benzydamine are the best treatment or/and prevention methods for oral mucositis. : Palifermin, Chlorhexidine, Smecta, Actovegin, Kangfuxin, L. brevis lozenges, Royal jelly, Zync supplement, Benzydamine, cryotherapy, laser therapy and professional oral hygiene may be used in oral mucositis treatment and prevention.
Topics: Anti-Infective Agents; Anti-Inflammatory Agents; Antineoplastic Agents; Clinical Trials as Topic; Cryotherapy; Fatty Acids; Head and Neck Neoplasms; Humans; Laser Therapy; Oral Hygiene; Radiotherapy; Stomatitis
PubMed: 30678228
DOI: 10.3390/medicina55020025 -
British Journal of Sports Medicine Sep 2017To investigate the effectiveness of conservative interventions for pain, function and range of motion in adults with shoulder impingement. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Effectiveness of conservative interventions including exercise, manual therapy and medical management in adults with shoulder impingement: a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs.
OBJECTIVE
To investigate the effectiveness of conservative interventions for pain, function and range of motion in adults with shoulder impingement.
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised trials.
DATA SOURCES
Medline, CENTRAL, CINAHL, Embase and PEDro were searched from inception to January 2017.
STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials including participants with shoulder impingement and evaluating at least one conservative intervention against sham or other treatments.
RESULTS
For pain, exercise was superior to non-exercise control interventions (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.94, 95% CI -1.69 to -0.19). Specific exercises were superior to generic exercises (SMD -0.65, 95% CI -0.99 to -0.32). Corticosteroid injections were superior to no treatment (SMD -0.65, 95% CI -1.04 to -0.26), and ultrasound guided injections were superior to non-guided injections (SMD -0.51, 95% CI -0.89 to -0.13). Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDS) had a small to moderate SMD of -0.29 (95% CI -0.53 to -0.05) compared with placebo. Manual therapy was superior to placebo (SMD -0.35, 95% CI -0.69 to -0.01). When combined with exercise, manual therapy was superior to exercise alone, but only at the shortest follow-up (SMD -0.32, 95% CI -0.62 to -0.01). Laser was superior to sham laser (SMD -0.88, 95% CI -1.48 to -0.27). Extracorporeal shockwave therapy (ECSWT) was superior to sham (-0.39, 95% CI -0.78 to -0.01) and tape was superior to sham (-0.64, 95% CI -1.16 to -0.12), with small to moderate SMDs.
CONCLUSION
Although there was only very low quality evidence, exercise should be considered for patients with shoulder impingement symptoms and tape, ECSWT, laser or manual therapy might be added. NSAIDS and corticosteroids are superior to placebo, but it is unclear how these treatments compare to exercise.
Topics: Comparative Effectiveness Research; Exercise Therapy; Humans; Laser Therapy; Musculoskeletal Manipulations; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Range of Motion, Articular; Shoulder Impingement Syndrome; Shoulder Pain
PubMed: 28630217
DOI: 10.1136/bjsports-2016-096515 -
BMJ Clinical Evidence Jun 2011Lateral pain in the elbow affects up to 3% of the population, and is considered an overload injury of the extensor tendons of the forearm where they attach at the... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Lateral pain in the elbow affects up to 3% of the population, and is considered an overload injury of the extensor tendons of the forearm where they attach at the lateral epicondyle. Although usually self-limiting, symptoms may persist for over 1 year in up to 20% of people.
METHODS AND OUTCOMES
We conducted a systematic review and aimed to answer the following clinical question: What are the effects of treatments for tennis elbow? We searched: Medline, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and other important databases up to November 2009 (Clinical Evidence reviews are updated periodically, please check our website for the most up-to-date version of this review). We included harms alerts from relevant organisations such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).
RESULTS
We found 80 systematic reviews, RCTs, or observational studies that met our inclusion criteria. We performed a GRADE evaluation of the quality of evidence for interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
In this systematic review we present information relating to the effectiveness and safety of the following interventions: acupuncture, autologous whole blood injections, corticosteroid injections, combination physical therapies, exercise, extracorporeal shock wave therapy, iontophoresis, low-level laser therapy, manipulation, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (oral and topical), orthoses (bracing), platelet-rich plasma injections, pulsed electromagnetic field treatment, surgery, and ultrasound.
Topics: High-Energy Shock Waves; Humans; Low-Level Light Therapy; Physical Therapy Modalities; Platelet-Rich Plasma; Tennis Elbow; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 21708051
DOI: No ID Found -
Medicine Oct 2018Plantar fasciitis is one of the most common causes of adult heel pain. The aim of this study is to comprehensively compare the effectiveness of various therapies for... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Comparative effectiveness of extracorporeal shock wave, ultrasound, low-level laser therapy, noninvasive interactive neurostimulation, and pulsed radiofrequency treatment for treating plantar fasciitis: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
Plantar fasciitis is one of the most common causes of adult heel pain. The aim of this study is to comprehensively compare the effectiveness of various therapies for plantar fasciitis using network meta-analysis.
METHODS
Studies were comprehensively searched on Embase, MEDLINE via PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), and the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) up to December 4, 2017. Randomized controlled trials that used extracorporeal shock wave therapy, ultrasound, ultrasound-guided pulsed radiofrequency treatment (UG-PRF), intracorporeal pneumatic shock therapy (IPST), low-level laser therapy (LLLT), and noninvasive interactive neurostimulation (NIN) for the treatment of plantar fasciitis were included. The primary outcome is change in pain relief. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Quality assessment was performed using the GRADE system.
RESULTS
Nineteen trials with 1676 patients with plantar fasciitis plantar fasciitis were included. In the pair-wise meta-analysis, radial extracorporeal shock wave therapy (RSW), LLLT, and IPST showed a significant pooled reduction in the visual analogue scale (VAS) compared with placebo at 0 to 6 weeks [mean difference (MD) = 6.60, 95% confidence interval (CI): (6.04, -7.16); MD = 2.34, 95% CI: (1.60, 3.08); MD = 2.24, 95% CI: (1.44, 3.04), respectively]. Compared with placebo, UG-PRF [MD = 2.31, 95% CI: (1.26, 3.36)] and high-intensity focused extracorporeal shock wave (H-FSW) [MD = 0.82, 95% CI: (0.20, 1.45)] showed superior pain-relieving effects at 2 to 4 months; UG-PRF [MD = 1.11, 95% CI: (0.07, 2.15)] and IPST [MD = 4.92, 95% CI: (4.11, 5.73)] showed superior effects at 6 to 12 months. In the network meta-analysis, only RSW induced significant pain reduction compared with placebo at 0 to 6 weeks [MD = 3.67, 95% CI: (0.31, 6.9)]. No significant differences were found for the 2 to 4-month and 6 to 12-month periods because of the wide 95% CIs.
CONCLUSIONS
We recommend treating plantar fasciitis with RSW. The commonly used ultrasound and focused extracorporeal shock wave (FSW) therapies can be considered as alternative treatment candidates. IPST, NIN, and LLLT may potentially be better alternatives, although their superiority should be confirmed by additional comprehensive evidence.PROSPERO registration number: PROSPERO (CRD42015017353).
Topics: Electric Stimulation; Fasciitis, Plantar; Humans; Low-Level Light Therapy; Network Meta-Analysis; Pain Management; Pain Measurement; Pulsed Radiofrequency Treatment; Ultrasonic Therapy
PubMed: 30412072
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000012819 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Sep 2022Hypertrophic and keloid scars are common skin conditions resulting from abnormal wound healing. They can cause itching, pain and have a negative physical and... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Hypertrophic and keloid scars are common skin conditions resulting from abnormal wound healing. They can cause itching, pain and have a negative physical and psychological impact on patients' lives. Different approaches are used aiming to improve these scars, including intralesional corticosteroids, surgery and more recently, laser therapy. Since laser therapy is expensive and may have adverse effects, it is critical to evaluate the potential benefits and harms of this therapy for treating hypertrophic and keloid scars.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of laser therapy for treating hypertrophic and keloid scars.
SEARCH METHODS
In March 2021 we searched the Cochrane Wounds Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL EBSCO Plus and LILACS. To identify additional studies, we also searched clinical trials registries for ongoing and unpublished studies, and scanned reference lists of relevant included studies as well as reviews, meta-analyses, and health technology reports. There were no restrictions with respect to language, date of publication, or study setting.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) for treating hypertrophic or keloid scars (or both), comparing laser therapy with placebo, no intervention or another intervention.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently selected studies, extracted the data, assessed the risk of bias of included studies and carried out GRADE assessments to assess the certainty of evidence. A third review author arbitrated if there were disagreements.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 15 RCTs, involving 604 participants (children and adults) with study sample sizes ranging from 10 to 120 participants (mean 40.27). Where studies randomised different parts of the same scar, each scar segment was the unit of analysis (906 scar segments). The length of participant follow-up varied from 12 weeks to 12 months. All included trials had a high risk of bias for at least one domain: all studies were deemed at high risk of bias due to lack of blinding of participants and personnel. The variability of intervention types, controls, follow-up periods and limitations with report data meant we pooled data for one comparison (and only two outcomes within this). Several review secondary outcomes - cosmesis, tolerance, preference for different modes of treatment, adherence, and change in quality of life - were not reported in any of the included studies. Laser versus no treatment: We found low-certainty evidence suggesting there may be more hypertrophic and keloid scar improvement (that is scars are less severe) in 585-nm pulsed-dye laser (PDL) -treated scars compared with no treatment (risk ratio (RR) 1.96; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.11 to 3.45; two studies, 60 scar segments). It is unclear whether non-ablative fractional laser (NAFL) impacts on hypertrophic scar severity when compared with no treatment (very low-certainty evidence). It is unclear whether fractional carbon dioxide (CO) laser impacts on hypertrophic and keloid scar severity compared with no treatment (very low-certainty evidence). Eight studies reported treatment-related adverse effects but did not provide enough data for further analyses. Laser versus other treatments: We are uncertain whether treatment with 585-nm PDL impacts on hypertrophic and keloid scar severity compared with intralesional corticosteroid triamcinolone acetonide (TAC), intralesional Fluorouracil (5-FU) or combined use of TAC plus 5-FU (very low-certainty evidence). It is also uncertain whether erbium laser impacts on hypertrophic scar severity when compared with TAC (very low-certainty evidence). Other comparisons included 585-nm PDL versus silicone gel sheeting, fractional CO laser versus TAC and fractional CO laser versus verapamil. However, the authors did not report enough data regarding the severity of scars to compare the interventions. As only very low-certainty evidence is available on treatment-related adverse effects, including pain, charring (skin burning so that the surface becomes blackened), telangiectasia (a condition in which tiny blood vessels cause thread-like red lines on the skin), skin atrophy (skin thinning), purpuric discolorations, hypopigmentation (skin colour becomes lighter), and erosion (loss of part of the top layer of skin, leaving a denuded surface) secondary to blistering, we are not able to draw conclusions as to how these treatments compare. Laser plus other treatment versus other treatment: It is unclear whether 585-nm PDL plus TAC plus 5-FU leads to a higher percentage of good to excellent improvement in hypertrophic and keloid scar severity compared with TAC plus 5-FU, as the certainty of evidence has been assessed as very low. Due to very low-certainty evidence, it is also uncertain whether CO laser plus TAC impacts on keloid scar severity compared with cryosurgery plus TAC. The evidence is also very uncertain about the effect of neodymium-doped yttrium aluminium garnet (Nd:YAG) laser plus intralesional corticosteroid diprospan plus 5-FU on scar severity compared with diprospan plus 5-FU and about the effect of helium-neon (He-Ne) laser plus decamethyltetrasiloxane, polydimethylsiloxane and cyclopentasiloxane cream on scar severity compared with decamethyltetrasiloxane, polydimethylsiloxane and cyclopentasiloxane cream. Only very low-certainty evidence is available on treatment-related adverse effects, including pain, atrophy, erythema, telangiectasia, hypopigmentation, regrowth, hyperpigmentation (skin colour becomes darker), and depigmentation (loss of colour from the skin). Therefore, we are not able to draw conclusions as to how these treatments compare. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is insufficient evidence to support or refute the effectiveness of laser therapy for treating hypertrophic and keloid scars. The available information is also insufficient to perform a more accurate analysis on treatment-related adverse effects related to laser therapy. Due to the heterogeneity of the studies, conflicting results, study design issues and small sample sizes, further high-quality trials, with validated scales and core outcome sets should be developed. These trials should take into consideration the consumers' opinion and values, the need for long-term follow-up and the necessity of reporting the rate of recurrence of scars to determine whether lasers may achieve superior results when compared with other therapies for treating hypertrophic and keloid scars.
Topics: Adrenal Cortex Hormones; Adult; Aluminum; Atrophy; Carbon Dioxide; Child; Cicatrix, Hypertrophic; Dimethylpolysiloxanes; Erbium; Fluorouracil; Helium; Humans; Hypertrophy; Hypopigmentation; Keloid; Laser Therapy; Neodymium; Neon; Pain; Silicone Gels; Telangiectasis; Triamcinolone Acetonide; Verapamil; Wound Healing; Yttrium
PubMed: 36161591
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD011642.pub2 -
Medicine Nov 2019Laser systems are a common treatment choice for onychomycosis. They exert their effects on inhibiting the growth of the fungus by selective photothermolysis but efficacy... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Laser systems are a common treatment choice for onychomycosis. They exert their effects on inhibiting the growth of the fungus by selective photothermolysis but efficacy is dependent on the specific type of apparatus used. To systematically review the available published literature on the curative effects and safety of laser treatment for onychomycosis.
METHODS
Databases including PubMed, web of science, China National Knowledge Internet (CNKI), WanFang Database and VIP were searched systematically to identify relevant articles published up to July 2018. Potentially relevant articles were sourced, assessed against eligibility criteria by 2 researchers independently and data were extracted from included studies. A meta-analysis was performed using R software.
RESULTS
Thirty-five articles involving 1723 patients and 4278 infected nails were included. Meta-analysis of data extracted from these studies revealed that: the overall mycological cure rate was 63.0% (95%CI 0.53-0.73); the mycological cure rate associated with the 1064-nm Nd: YAG laser was 63.0% (95%CI 0.51-0.74); and that of CO2 lasers was 74.0% (95%CI 0.37-0.98). The published data indicate that laser treatment is relatively safe, but can cause tolerable pain and occasionally lead to bleeding after treatment.
CONCLUSION
Laser treatment of onychomycosis is effective and safe. The cumulative cure rate of laser treatment was significantly higher for CO2 lasers than other types of laser. Laser practitioners should be made aware of potential adverse effects such as pain and bleeding.
Topics: Humans; Lasers, Gas; Lasers, Solid-State; Low-Level Light Therapy; Nails; Onychomycosis; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 31770202
DOI: 10.1097/MD.0000000000017948 -
Pain Physician May 2019Fibromyalgia is a chronic disorder characterized by widespread pain and tenderness. Low-level laser therapy (LLLT), an emerging nonpharmacological treatment, has been... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Fibromyalgia is a chronic disorder characterized by widespread pain and tenderness. Low-level laser therapy (LLLT), an emerging nonpharmacological treatment, has been used for relieving musculoskeletal or neuropathic pain.
OBJECTIVE
The objective of this review and meta-analysis was to determine the efficacy of LLLT on patients with fibromyalgia.
STUDY DESIGN
This study involved systematic review and quantitative meta-analysis of published randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
SETTING
This study examined all RCTs evaluating the effect of LLLT on fibromyalgia.
METHODS
We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs evaluating the effect of LLLT on patients with fibromyalgia. PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library were searched for articles published before August 2018. RCTs meeting our selection criteria were included. The methodological quality of the RCTs was evaluated according to the Cochrane risk-for-bias method. Review Manager version 5.3 was used to perform the meta-analysis. The primary outcomes were the total scores on the Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire (FIQ), pain severity, and number of tender points. The secondary outcomes were changes in fatigue, stiffness, anxiety, and depression. Standardized mean difference (SMD), 95% confidence intervals (CI), and P values were calculated for outcome analysis.
RESULTS
We identified 9 RCTs that included 325 fibromyalgia patients undergoing LLLT or placebo laser treatment with or without an exercise program. The meta-analysis showed that patients receiving LLLT demonstrated significantly greater improvement in their FIQ scores (SMD: 1.16; 95% CI, 0.64-1.69), pain severity (SMD: 1.18; 95% CI, 0.82-1.54), number of tender points (SMD: 1.01; 95% CI, 0.49-1.52), fatigue (SMD: 1.4; 95% CI, 0.96-1.84), stiffness (SMD: 0.92; 95% CI, 0.36-1.48), depression (SMD: 1.46; 95% CI, 0.93-2.00), and anxiety (SMD: 1.46; 95% CI, 0.45-2.47) than those receiving placebo laser. Furthermore, when compared with the standardized exercise program alone, LLLT plus the standardized exercise program provided no extra advantage in the relief of symptoms. On the other hand, the results of the only RCT using combined LLLT/LED phototherapy showed significant improvement in most outcomes except for depression when compared to placebo. When compared with pure exercise therapy, combined LLLT/LED phototherapy plus exercise therapy had additional benefits in reducing the severity of pain, number of tender points, and fatigue.
LIMITATIONS
There were some limitations in this review, mostly because of the low-to-middle methodological quality of the selected studies; for example, there was no clear allocation process and only patients were blinded in most studies. In addition, one study used per-protocol analysis with a 20% loss to follow-up. On the other hand, the differences in laser types, energy sources, exposure times, and associated medication status in these studies may have resulted in some heterogeneity.
CONCLUSIONS
Our results provided the most up-to-date and relevant evidence regarding the effects of LLLT in fibromyalgia. LLLT is an effective, safe, and well-tolerated treatment for fibromyalgia.
KEY WORDS
Low-level laser therapy, fibromyalgia, meta-analysis, FIQ, pain, tender points,exercise.
Topics: Fibromyalgia; Humans; Low-Level Light Therapy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 31151332
DOI: No ID Found -
European Journal of Physical and... Aug 2017This meta-analysis investigated the effectiveness of low-level laser therapy (LLLT) on pain in adult patients with musculoskeletal disorders. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
INTRODUCTION
This meta-analysis investigated the effectiveness of low-level laser therapy (LLLT) on pain in adult patients with musculoskeletal disorders.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
A systematic literature search was conducted in the Medline and PEDro databases. Two researchers independently screened titles and abstracts of the retrieved studies for eligibility. Quality assessment of the eligible studies was conducted using the PEDro rating scale. Studies that scored ≥4 were included. A random-effects model was used for this meta-analysis. Subgroup meta-analyses were conducted to evaluate the influence of the adherence of the applied LLLT to the World Association of Laser Therapy (WALT) guidelines, the anatomical site under investigation and the study design on the overall weighted mean effect size. Meta regression was used to assess the possible influence of the study quality on the individual study effect sizes.
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
Eighteen studies allowing for 21 head-to-head comparisons (totaling N.=1462 participants) were included. The pooled raw mean difference (D) in pain between LLLT and the control groups was -0.85 (95% CI: -1.22 to -0.48). There was high (I²=85.6%) and significant between study heterogeneity (Cochran's Q =139.2; df=20; P<0.001). The subgroup meta-analysis of the comparisons not following the WALT guidelines revealed a D=-0.68 (95% CI: -1.09 to -0.27). In this group, heterogeneity decreased to I²=72.6% (Q=51.2; df=14; P<0.001). In the WALT subgroup D equaled -1.52 (95% CI: -2.34 to -0.70). This between groups difference was clinically relevant although statistically not significant (Q=3.24; df=1; P=0.072).
CONCLUSIONS
This meta-analysis presents evidence that LLLT is an effective treatment modality to reduce pain in adult patients with musculoskeletal disorders. Adherence to WALT dosage recommendations seems to enhance treatment effectiveness.
Topics: Evidence-Based Medicine; Female; Follow-Up Studies; Humans; Low-Level Light Therapy; Male; Musculoskeletal Diseases; Pain; Pain Measurement; Risk Assessment; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 28145397
DOI: 10.23736/S1973-9087.17.04432-X -
Dental and Medical Problems 2023Laser protocols for the treatment of dentin hypersensitivity (DH) have not yet been studied systematically. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Laser protocols for the treatment of dentin hypersensitivity (DH) have not yet been studied systematically.
OBJECTIVES
The present study aimed to review clinical trials on the treatment of DH with laser therapy through a systematic review and meta-analysis.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
The search of electronic databases resulted in 562 publications up to April 2020. The inclusion criteria were studies carried out on humans and reporting on the treatment of DH with laser therapy. Case reports, literature reviews and systematic reviews were excluded. Selected by abstract, potentially eligible papers were read in full (n = 160). Independent examiners performed data extraction and the assessment of the risk of bias.
RESULTS
A total of 34 studies were included in the analysis, and 11 in the quantitative analysis. It was observed that most studies followed up patients for a maximum of 6 months (55%). Through the meta-analysis, we observed statistically significant differences between the average pain before and after 3 months of treatment with highand low-power lasers. However, through indirect comparisons, it was observed that the high-power laser showed a greater tendency to reduce the pain levels after 3 months of treatment as compared to the low-power laser, but without a statistically significant difference.
CONCLUSIONS
It was possible to conclude that regardless of the type of laser used in the treatment of DH, this treatment is an effective option for the control of pain symptoms. However, it was not possible to establish a defined treatment protocol, since the evaluation methods are very different from each other. Text for Rewiew and clinical cases.
Topics: Humans; Dentin Sensitivity; Laser Therapy; Low-Level Light Therapy; Treatment Outcome; Lasers
PubMed: 37023343
DOI: 10.17219/dmp/151482 -
Lasers in Medical Science May 2017The aim of this systematic review was to assess a potential benefit of laser use in the treatment of recurrent aphthous stomatitis (RAS). The primary outcome variables... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
The aim of this systematic review was to assess a potential benefit of laser use in the treatment of recurrent aphthous stomatitis (RAS). The primary outcome variables were pain relief, duration of wound healing and reduction in episode frequency. A PICO approach was used as a search strategy in Medline, Embase and Cochrane databases. After scanning and excluding titles, abstracts and full texts, 11 studies (ten RCTs and one non-randomised controlled trial) were included. Study selection and data extraction was done by two observers. Study participants varied between 7-90 for the laser and 5-90 for the control groups. Laser treatment included Nd:YAG laser ablation, CO laser applied through a transparent gel (non-ablative) and diode laser in a low-level laser treatment (LLLT) mode. Control groups had placebo, no therapy or topical corticosteroid treatment. Significant pain relief immediately after treatment was found in five out of six studies. Pain relief in the days following treatment was recorded in seven studies. The duration of RAS wound healing was also reduced in five studies. However, criteria of evaluation differed between the studies. The episode frequency was not evaluated as only one study addressed this outcome parameter, but did not discriminate between the study (LLLT) and control (corticosteroid) groups. Jadad scores (ranging from 0 to 5) for quality assessment of the included studies range between 0 and 2 (mean = 1.0) for studies analysing pain relief and between 0 and 3 (mean = 1.1) for studies evaluating wound healing. The use of lasers (CO laser, Nd:YAG laser and diode laser) to relieve symptoms and promote healing of RAS is a therapeutic option. More studies for laser applications are necessary to demonstrate superiority over topical pharmaceutical treatment and to recommend a specific laser type, wavelength, power output and applied energy (ablative versus photobiomodulation).
Topics: Humans; Laser Therapy; Lasers, Gas; Lasers, Semiconductor; Lasers, Solid-State; Pain; Recurrence; Stomatitis, Aphthous; Wound Healing
PubMed: 28345122
DOI: 10.1007/s10103-017-2184-z