Trial reportMedical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research2024
Enhanced Recovery of Local Anesthesia in Pediatric Patients: The Impact of Photobiomodulation on Reversing Anesthesia Effects.
Trial report in Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effect of 810-nm diode laser photobiomodulation on the reversal of maxillary and mandibular soft tissue local anaesthesia in children: a randomized split-mouth clinical trial.Scientific reports · 2026Trial
- Photobiomodulation Therapy for Neurosensory Disturbances in Orthognathic Surgery Patients: A Systematic Review.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Assessment of the onset of analgesia and length of analgesia following the use of PBM with different wavelengths: a clinical study.Lasers in medical science · 2024Article
- Bone Regeneration Capabilities of Scaffolds Containing Chitosan and Nanometric Hydroxyapatite-Systematic Review Based on In Vivo Examinations.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND The split-mouth study design is used in oral health research and usually consists of 2 treatments randomly assigned to either the right or left side. This split-mouth study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of photobiomodulation on reversal of local anesthesia in 50 children aged 8-10 years. MATERIAL AND METHODS The study was conducted among 50 children: 27 girls and 23 boys, aged 8-10 years (mean age 9.38±1.15 years), who presented 2 carious maxillary permanent molars. One side was randomly assigned to the laser group (50 teeth), and the contralateral side to the control group (50 teeth). At the end of the treatment, photobiomodulation (PBM) was performed in the area of infiltration at 6 points, with 635 nm (25 children) (250 mW, 500 mW/cm², 15J) and 808 nm (25 children) (200 mW, 400 mW/cm², 12J) (SmartM PRO, Lasotronix, Poland). On the contralateral side, the laser's off-mode applicator was used. Anesthetic effect was evaluated by palpation test (soft tissues) and electrical test (dental pulp). RESULTS After 15 minutes, in the laser group the return to normal sensations in the palpation test showed 88% (808 nm) and 68% (635 nm), and only 20% in the control group (P=0.04123). After 45 minutes, all the participants from the PBM group returned to normal sensations (P=0.21458). Dental pulp's excitability threshold was lower for both wavelengths compared to the control group (P=0.000001). CONCLUSIONS The identification of factors accelerating the recovery time to normal function, such as PBM, can be used as important data to eliminate self-injury secondary to local anesthesia (LA) in children.
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.