Table 1. Characteristics of the included studies.
| Study ID | Year | Number of participants (Male/Female) | Age in mean ± SD (range) | Country | Center | Category | Grouping methods | Periodontal treatment | Study design | Evaluation interval | Main findings |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ozcelik et al. [32] | 2008 | 22 (12/10) | N/A (31-49) | Turkey | University hospital | PBMT | 1. EMD, 2. EMD+PBMT |
Regenerative therapy (EMD) | Split-mouth | Day 1-7 | EMD+PBMT had resulted in less gingival recession, less swelling and less VAS scores compared with EMD alone. |
| Braun et al. [28] | 2010 | 40 (21/19) | 55.3 ± 10.0 | Germany | University hospital | HLLT | 1. Laser, 2. Sc | Sc | Split-mouth | Post-treatment | Pain assessment showed that laser treatment caused less pain than the sonic device with no difference in the treatment time. |
| Rotundo et al. [29] | 2010 | 27 (9/18) | 50.5 ± 11.7 | Sweden | University hospital | HLLT | 1. Sc, 2. Laser+SRP, 3. Laser, 4. SRP |
SRP | Split-mouth | Pre- and post-treatment, 1w, 6 M | The adjunctive use of laser to SRP did not show additional effectiveness in periodontal condition. Laser+SRP group tended to have less pain immediately and one week after treatment than SRP alone group, however the differences are not significant. |
| Slot et al. [36] | 2012 | 30 (13/17) | 48.7 ± 11.3 (39-65) | Netherlands | Private clinic | HLLT | 1. SRP, 2. Laser+SRP |
SRP | Split-mouth | Post-treatment | The adjunctive use of laser to SRP did not show additional effectiveness in periodontal condition. Laser+SRP treated quadrants presented with significantly more postoperative pain. |
| Sanz-Moliner et al. [37] | 2013 | 13 (8/5) | 52 ± 8.5 | USA | University hospital | HLLT and PBMT | 1. Fop, 2. Fop+Laser | Fop | Split-mouth | Day 1-7 | Statistically significant differences were shown for pain scale assessment and pain medication consumption favoring test sites. |
| Yilmaz et al. [30] | 2014 | 32 (13/19) | Test: 29.0 ± 4.1, Control: 29.3 ± 4.8 | Turkey | University hospital | HLLT | 1. Laser-assisted laterally positioned flap, 2. Laterally positioned flap |
Laterally positioned flap | Parallel | 1 w | The ratio of complete root coverage in test group is significantly higher than control group. There were no differences in VAS pain score between the groups. |
| Ge et al. [31] | 2017 | 31 (14/17) | 35.2 ± 9.8 (24-72) | China | University hospital | HLLT | 1. Laser, 2. SRP | SRP | Split-mouth | Post-treatment | The reduction of PPD and BOP at weeks 6 and 12 was significantly higher in laser group than in SRP group. The VAS pain score was significantly lower in laser group than in SRP group. |
| Heidari et al. [33] | 2018 | 30 (14/16) | 42.5 ± 9.5 (23-63) | Iran | Private clinic | PBMT | 1. Fop+PBMT, 2. Fop | Fop | Split-mouth | Day 1-7 | Patients reported less pain on days 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 after surgery in Fop+PBMT group. Furthermore, fewer analgesics were used in this group on days 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 following the surgery. |
| Yildiz et al. [34] | 2018 | 30 (2/28) | Test: 25.53 ± 6.25, Control: 26.94 ± 7.06 | Turkey | University hospital | PBMT | 1. FGG+PBMT, 2. FGG |
FGG | Parallel | Day 1-7 | FGG+PBMT group showed significantly lower VAS pain score and less number of analgesic used. |
| Isler et al. [35] | 2018 | 36 (12/24) | Test: 41.25 ± 10.91, Control: 38.41 ± 14.66 | Turkey | University hospital | PBMT | 1. PBMT, 2. Ozone, 3. Control |
FGG | Parallel | Day 1, 2, 3, 7, 14, 30 |
No significant difference was obsereved in each group regarding the remaining wound area. Regarding VAS pain score, the control group had higher VAS scores at all time points, no statistically significant difference was observed between the groups. |
HLLT, high reactive-level laser/light therapy; Sc, Scaling; SRP, scaling and root planing; VAS, visual analogue scale; PPD, probing pocket depth; BOP bleeding on probing; PBMT, photobiomodulation therapy; EMD, enamel matrix derivative; Fop, flap operation; FGG, free gingival graft technique