Trial reportClinical oral investigations2023
Comparative analysis of photobiomodulation therapy and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation for burning mouth: a randomized clinical trial.
Trial report in Clinical oral investigations, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05816200 (Comparative Analysis of Low-Level Light Therapy and Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation for Burning Mouth), which is not on this map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Comparative Analysis of Low-Level Light Therapy and Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation for Burning Mouth: a Randomized Clinical Trial
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Photobiomodulation Therapy in the Management of Orofacial Neuropathic Pain-WALT Position Paper 2026.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the effect of photobiomodulation (PBM) and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) in the treatment of burning mouth. MATERIALS AND
methodsRandomized clinical trial of 25 patients with burning mouth treated by TENS (n=12) and PBM (n=13). The patients were treated weekly for 8 weeks. Two-factor ANOVA was used to determine whether the two interventions promoted significant differences in symptoms (measured with a visual analogue scale), unstimulated salivary flow, xerostomia, and dysgeusia between T0 (baseline), T1 (after the 4th treatment session), T2 (after the 8th treatment session), and T3 (30 days after the end of treatment).
resultsIntragroup comparison of VAS scores for pain showed a significant difference between T0xT1, T0xT2, and T0xT3 in the TENS group and between T0xT2 and T0xT3 in the PBM group (p˂0.001). Intergroup comparison of VAS scores for pain between T2xT3 showed a better response to PBM than to TENS (p=0.003). Patients of the TENS group showed an increase in salivary flow between T1 and T2 (p=0.052). There were no expressive variations in xerostomia or dysgeusia in the two groups analyzed.
conclusionTENS and PBM were effective in reducing the symptoms of burning mouth during and after treatment. The PBM group showed a better response during follow-up.
trial registrationThis clinical trial was registered at http://clinicaltrials.gov (Number: NCT05816200). CLINICAL RELEVANCE: TENS was found to be a safe and effective therapy for burning mouth. Trial registration number (TRN) and date of registration: This clinical trial was registered at http://clinicaltrials.gov (Number: NCT05816200; date: May 08, 2023).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.