↓ Skip to main content

Efficacy of low-level laser therapy in accelerating tooth movement, preventing relapse and managing acute pain during orthodontic treatment in humans: a systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Oral Health, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
46 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
163 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Efficacy of low-level laser therapy in accelerating tooth movement, preventing relapse and managing acute pain during orthodontic treatment in humans: a systematic review
Published in
BMC Oral Health, July 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12903-016-0242-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Mikael Sonesson, Emelie De Geer, Jaqueline Subraian, Sofia Petrén

Abstract

Recently low-level laser therapy (LLLT) has been proposed to improve orthodontic treatment. The aims of this systematic review were to investigate the scientific evidence to support applications of LLLT: (a) to accelerate tooth movement, (b) to prevent orthodontic relapse and (c) to modulate acute pain, during treatment with fixed appliances in children and young adults. To ensure a systematic literature approach, this systematic review was conducted to Goodman's four step model. Three databases were searched (Medline, Cochrane Controlled Clinical Trials Register and Scitation), using predetermined search terms. The quality of evidence was rated according to the GRADE system. The search identified 244 articles, 16 of which fulfilled the inclusion criteria: three on acceleration of tooth movement by LLLT and 13 on LLLT modulation of acute pain. No study on LLLT for prevention of relapse was identified. The selected studies reported promising results for LLLT; elevated acceleration of tooth movement and lower pain scores, than controls. With respect to method, there were wide variations in type of laser techniques. The quality of evidence supporting LLLT to accelerate orthodontic tooth movement is very low and low with respect to modulate acute pain. No studies met the inclusion criteria for evaluating LLLT to limit relapse. The results highlight the need for high quality research, with consistency in study design, to determine whether LLLT can enhance fixed appliance treatment in children and young adults.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 163 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 <1%
Unknown 162 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 26 16%
Student > Postgraduate 16 10%
Student > Bachelor 15 9%
Researcher 13 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 4%
Other 31 19%
Unknown 55 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 85 52%
Unspecified 6 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 2%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 2 1%
Neuroscience 2 1%
Other 5 3%
Unknown 60 37%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 17 August 2016.
All research outputs
#16,106,863
of 25,459,177 outputs
Outputs from BMC Oral Health
#759
of 1,798 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#219,796
of 371,138 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Oral Health
#15
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,459,177 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,798 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.1. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 54% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 371,138 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.