Efficacy of low-level laser therapy in the treatment of TMDs: a meta-analysis of 14 randomised controlled trials

Acupuncture therapy in the management of the clinical outcomes for temporomandibular disorders: A PRISMA-compliant meta-analysis

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to evaluate conventional acupuncture therapy in the management of clinical outcomes for temporomandibular disorders (TMD) in adults.

METHODS

The electronic databases PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Clinical Trails.gov were searched for reports published until March 31, 2016.

RESULTS

Nine eligible studies from 8 publications involving 231 patients were included in the meta-analysis. A comparison of the main outcome of visual analog scale (VAS) values of pain between the acupuncture group and control group showed a significant decrease (MD = -0.98, 95% CI [-1.62, -0.34], I=54%, P = 0.003) in the VAS following acupuncture treatment. However, subgroup analysis according to the type of sham control group indicated that there were significant differences in the results when sham acupuncture was used as the control group (MD = -1.54, 95% CI [-2.63, -0.45], I=58%, P = 0.006) as well as when sham laser treatment was used as the control group (MD = -1.29, 95% CI [-2.32, -0.27], I = 0%, P = 0.01). However, there was no significant difference when the splint treatment group was used as the control group (MD = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.69, 0.50], I = 0%, P = 0.76). Subgroup analyses of VAS for pain by the classification of diseases indicated that the myogenous TMD subgroup demonstrated a significant difference (MD = -1.49, 95% CI [-2.45, -0.53], I = 47%, P = 0.002), and TMD showed no statistically significant difference (MD = -0.42, 95% CI [-1.14, 0.30], I = 46%, P = 0.25). Subgroup analysis according to whether the subgroup penetrated the skin showed that nonpenetrating sham acupuncture as the control group showed a significant difference (MD = -1.56, 95% CI [-2.70, -0.41], I = 58%, P = 0.008) compared with the conventional acupuncture as the treatment modality, while penetrating sham acupuncture as the control group showed no significant difference (MD = -1.29, 95% CI [-3.40, 0.82], I = not applicable, P = 0.23). No publication bias was observed considering the symmetry of the funnel plots.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results indicate that conventional acupuncture therapy is effective in reducing the degree of pain in patients with TMD, especially those with myofascial pain symptoms.

Effects of oral motor exercises and laser therapy on chronic temporomandibular disorders: a randomized study with follow-up

This study investigated the efficacy of combining low-level laser therapy (LLLT) with oral motor exercises (OM-exercises) for rehabilitation of patients with chronic temporomandibular disorders (TMDs). Eighty-two patients with chronic TMD and 20 healthy subjects (control group) participated in the study. Patients were randomly assigned to treatment groups: GI (LLLT + OM exercises), GII (orofacial myofunctional therapy-OMT-which contains pain relief strategies and OM-exercises), and GIII (LLLT placebo + OM-exercises) and GIV (LLLT). LLLT (AsGaAl; 780-nm wavelength; average power of 60 mW, 40 s, and 60 ± 1.0 J/cm²) was used to promote analgesia, while OM-exercises were used to reestablish the orofacial functions. Evaluations at baseline (T1), after treatment immediate (T2), and at follow-up (T3) were muscle and joint tenderness to palpation, TMD severity, and orofacial myofunctional status. There was a significant improvement in outcome measures in all treated groups with stability at follow-up (Friedman test, P < 0.05), but GIV did not show difference in orofacial functions after LLLT (P > 0.05). Intergroup comparisons showed that all treated groups had no difference in tenderness to palpation of temporal muscle compared to GC at follow-up (Kruskal-Wallis test, P < 0.01). Moreover, GI, GII, and GIII showed no difference from GC in orofacial functional condition (T2 and T3) while they differed significantly from GIV (P < 0.01). In conclusion, LLLT combined with OM-exercises was more effective in promoting TMD rehabilitation than LLLT alone was. Similar treatment results were verified with the OMT protocol.

The effectiveness of low-level laser therapy for nonspecific chronic low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

In recent decades, low-level laser therapy (LLLT) has been widely used to relieve pain caused by different musculoskeletal disorders. Though widely used, its reported therapeutic outcomes are varied and conflicting. Results similarly conflict regarding its usage in patients with nonspecific chronic low back pain (NSCLBP). This study investigated the efficacy of low-level laser therapy (LLLT) for the treatment of NSCLBP by a systematic literature search with meta-analyses on selected studies.

METHOD

MEDLINE, EMBASE, ISI Web of Science and Cochrane Library were systematically searched from January 2000 to November 2014. Included studies were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) written in English that compared LLLT with placebo treatment in NSCLBP patients. The efficacy effect size was estimated by the weighted mean difference (WMD). Standard random-effects meta-analysis was used, and inconsistency was evaluated by the I-squared index (I(2)).

RESULTS

Of 221 studies, seven RCTs (one triple-blind, four double-blind, one single-blind, one not mentioning blinding, totaling 394 patients) met the criteria for inclusion. Based on five studies, the WMD in visual analog scale (VAS) pain outcome score after treatment was significantly lower in the LLLT group compared with placebo (WMD = -13.57 [95 % CI = -17.42, -9.72], I(2) = 0 %). No significant treatment effect was identified for disability scores or spinal range of motion outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings indicate that LLLT is an effective method for relieving pain in NSCLBP patients. However, there is still a lack of evidence supporting its effect on function.