ReviewOdontology2026
Photobiomodulation in orthodontics: an overview of systematic reviews with meta-regression and evidence map.
Review in Odontology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Photobiomodulation (PBM) has been studied as a potential addition to orthodontic treatment; however, concerns have been raised about inconsistent results. This overview summarizes systematic reviews (SRs) evaluating the effectiveness of PBM in orthodontic procedures. We systematically searched eight databases (PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, ProQuest, Google Scholar, VHL). Methodological quality was independently assessed by three reviewers using the AMSTAR 2 tool. Citation matrix analysis was performed to measure overlap among primary studies. Data on orthodontic tooth movement (OTM) were reanalyzed using meta-regression models (alpha = 5%). Evidence certainty was graded with GRADE. This overview included 40 SRs with 134 primary studies (n = 4730 participants). Most reviews were rated as critically low in quality. For OTM, meta-regression of only low-bias primary studies indicated that PBM accelerates tooth movement by roughly 1 mm over 3 months (Standardized Paired Difference = 0.99, 95% Confidence Interval = 0.32-1.67; p = 0.004). PBM seems to reduce pain after separator placement, although with limited clinical significance. It may also enhance miniscrew stability, but this is based on very low-certainty evidence. Other outcomes-such as periodontal health, orthodontically induced inflammatory root resorption, and rapid maxillary expansion-show no difference between PBM and control groups. In conclusion, current evidence does not support the routine clinical use of PBM in orthodontics. Future studies should focus on improving methodological quality before considering PBM as an evidence-based adjunct therapy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41723260What 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.