Trial reportLasers in medical science2025
Comparative evaluation of the effectiveness of transcutaneous electric nerve stimulation and photobiostimulation using diode laser prior to local anesthesia administration in children undergoing bilateral orthodontic extraction- a randomized controlled clinical trial.
Trial report in Lasers in medical science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
This study aimed to evaluate and compare the effectiveness of transcutaneous electric nerve stimulation (TENS) and photobiostimulation using diode LASER, prior to local anaesthesia administration in children undergoing bilateral orthodontic extractions. A split-mouth, parallel arm, Double blinded, randomized clinical trial was conducted on children (12 - 16 yrs) undergoing bilateral orthodontic extractions. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either TENS or PBST. Subjective and Objective parameters for anxiety and pain were assessed, and evaluated for statistical significance (p < 0.05). In this study with 104 patients (mean age 13.59), the TENS group showed significantly lower mean pain scores (WBPRS) for needle insertion (2.30 ± 2.7) versus PBST (5.03 ± 3.1, p < 0.01), LA administration (2.11 ± 2.8 vs. 4.84 ± 2.7, p < 0.01), and extraction (1.92 ± 2.6 vs. 3.23 ± 5.1, p < 0.01). TENS also led to a faster onset of local anesthesia (96.15 s ± 13.9) compared to PBST (155.38 s ± 91, p < 0.05), indicating enhanced efficacy for pain reduction and anesthesia speed. Physiological parameters like pulse rate and salivary pH also showed significant improvements with TENS. Hence TENS and PBST both came out as effective alternatives for topical anesthesia. Both TENS and PBST proved to be effective alternatives to topical anesthesia, TENS therapy with the Synapse Dental Pain Eraser (DPE) demonstrated greater effectiveness in reducing pain and anxiety, reflecting it as a promising option for pediatric patients. However further research is needed to refine and optimize pain management strategies using these alternatives in pediatric dentistry. CTRI Number- CTRI/2022/09/045460 [Registered on: 13/09/2022] Trial Registered Prospectively.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40186639What 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.