Effect of Laser Therapy on Postoperative Pain and Endodontic Retreatment: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Histological In Vivo Evaluation of Intense Pulsed Light Technology: Assessing the Safety on Oral Soft and Hard Tissues

Intense pulsed light (IPL) is used for aesthetic and therapeutic purposes. According to recent literature, utilizing IPL may boost upregulation of anti-inflammatory cytokines, and downregulation of pro-inflammatory cytokines. Concerns have been raised about potential thermal damage to the soft and hard tissues in the oral cavity. Therefore, the aim of this study was to determine the safety of using IPL of various intensities in the tissues of the oral cavity.

METHODS

Three adult pigs were included in the trial. The oral cavity was divided into four quadrants and projected with a wide range of IPL settings. Alveolar bone, buccal mucosa, and gingival tissue samples were taken immediately and after 24 h. In each animal, one quadrant of the jaw was left untreated and served as a control. All samples were processed and stained with H&E.

RESULTS

Clinical examination showed no evidence of changes in the integrity of the examined tissues. Histological examination of the different tissues did not demonstrate significant thermal damage or changes in the characterization of the cells compared to the control tissues.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of IPL in the oral cavity is safe and does not negatively affect the tissues.

A systematic review and meta-analysis on the effects of phototherapy on postoperative pain in conventional endodontic reintervention

OBJECTIVES

This systematic review and meta-analysis (SRM) aimed to evaluate the efficacy of laser phototherapy (LPT) on the reduction in postoperative pain (PP) of endodontic origin after conventional/non-surgical reintervention of root canals.

METHODS

This SRM was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021243500) and followed the guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis. Meta-analysis was conducted using R software with the "META" package, the mean difference (MD) measure of effect was calculated, and the fixed effect model was applied with a 95% confidence interval (CI). The Cochrane collaboration scale was used to assess the risk of bias and the GRADE tool to assess the quality of evidence.

RESULTS

Initially, 1028 articles were found, and five articles were included. Most studies were classified as "low" risk of bias. Of the five clinical studies, four showed a significant decrease in PP after endodontic reintervention in the LPT groups compared to the control group, especially in the first four days after the intervention. In symptomatic teeth with multiple roots, LPT led to less PP at 24 h (MD -0.52 [-1.03; -0.02] p = .04). However, no significant difference between the groups was found at 48 and 72 h (p > .05). The certainty of the evidence was classified as low.

CONCLUSION

Despite the limitations of this SRM, LPT was shown to be a promising alternative for reducing and controlling PP in conventional endodontic reintervention.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

The use of LPT in endodontic reintervention may be a safe and promising alternative to clinically efficacious agent for use in the management of PP in this procedure.