Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33036145›Full record

ReviewDentistry journal2020

Photobiomodulation Dose Parameters in Dentistry: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Mark Cronshaw, Steven Parker, Eugenia Anagnostaki, Valina Mylona, Edward Lynch, Martin Grootveld

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Dentistry journal, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

35 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Intraoral vs. extraoral photobiomodulation therapy for oral mucositis in head and neck cancer patients: a multicenter, randomized, single-blind clinical trial.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025
    Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Enhanced Recovery of Local Anesthesia in Pediatric Patients: The Impact of Photobiomodulation on Reversing Anesthesia Effects.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2024
    Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Photobiomodulation therapy.JADA foundational science · 2025
    Review
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Mark CronshawLeicester School of Pharmacy, De Montfort University, Leicester LE1 9BH, UK.
Steven ParkerLeicester School of Pharmacy, De Montfort University, Leicester LE1 9BH, UK.
Eugenia AnagnostakiLeicester School of Pharmacy, De Montfort University, Leicester LE1 9BH, UK.
Valina MylonaLeicester School of Pharmacy, De Montfort University, Leicester LE1 9BH, UK.
Edward LynchLeicester School of Pharmacy, De Montfort University, Leicester LE1 9BH, UK.
Martin GrootveldLeicester School of Pharmacy, De Montfort University, Leicester LE1 9BH, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThis systematic review and meta-analysis of published randomized controlled trials examines a possible relationship between optical spot size at surface tissue, irradiance, radiant exposure, total energy delivered, operator technique and reported clinical outcomes.

backgroundClinical photobiomodulation (PBM) therapy has achieved a high level of evidence-based acceptance in the mitigation of oral mucositis associated with cancer radiotherapy and chemotherapy, and supportive clinical research in relation to orthodontic tooth movement, oral medical conditions, including burning mouth syndrome, xerostomia and lichen planus. Inconsistent outcomes have been reported not withstanding a substantial body of primary supportive research from clinical, in vitro and animal studies. MATERIALS AND

methodsPubMed, Cochrane Database of Reviews and Google Scholar search engines were applied to identify human clinical trials of PBM therapy in clinical dentistry. A total of 766 articles between February 2009 and June 2020 were identified and following a full text evaluation, 38 papers with sufficient data to permit analyses are included in this investigation.

resultsFollowing a detailed assessment of potential factors that may have an influence in clinical outcome, a clear trend is apparent associating optical spot size to a positive or negative effect. Furthermore, there is a clear difference in the reported results in relation to total energy applied, delivery techniques and optical parameters, which merits further investigation. Factorial statistical analyses identified an association between smaller optical surface applications and an overall lower level of reported clinical success in treating superficial and deeper targets, and correspondingly sub-surface larger target tissues were found to be more responsive to therapy by use of a larger optical surface spot size. Moreover, use of multiple small diameter probe applications was found to provide inconsistent results.

conclusionsMany factors can confound clinical success including variations in anatomy, site location, clinical condition and subject individuality. To achieve higher levels of predictable outcome, a mature appreciation of these factors, plus an expanded understanding of laser parametry, tissue volume and target depth to deliver an adequate dose within current recommended guidelines, is essential.

Indexed as

dentistrydiode laserlow-level laser therapy (LLLT)photobiomodulation (PBM)systematic review

Identifiers

PMID33036145
PMCPMC7711492

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.