Table 2.

Detailed descriptive summary of all of the included studies

Author/year	Country	Mean age	Number of patients	Sex (M/F)	Sample size study group	Sample size control group	Intervention control group	Type of laser	Wavelength (nm)	Number of sessions	Treatment time (weeks)	Follow-up (month)	Clinical examination and blood tests	Outcome measurements
Arbabi Kalati et al. 2015 [35]	Iran	46.9	20	-	10	10	Sham laser	Red	630	4	2	-	Yes	NSR, OHIP-14
Spanemberg et al. 2015a [33]	Spain	61.73	58	08/50	19	19	Sham laser	Red	685	9	3	2	Yes	VAS, NRS, OHIP-14
Spanemberg et al. 2015b [33]	Spain	65.5	58	08/50	20		Sham laser	Infrared	830	9	3	2	Yes	VAS, NRS, OHIP-14
Valenzuela et al. 2017a [34]	Spain	65.5	44	03/41	16	12	Sham laser	Infrared	815	4	4	2	-	VAS, OHIP-14, Xerostomia Inventory, HAD, PGI-I
Valenzuela et al. 2017b [34]	Spain	45	44	03/41	16		Sham laser	Infrared	815	4	4	2	-	VAS, OHIP-14, Xerostomia Inventory, HAD, PGI-I
Barbosa et al. 2018 [36]	Brazil	45	15	06/09	10	5	Pharmacotherapy	Red	660	4	4	-	Yes	VAS
Bardellini et al. 2019 [38]	Italy	60.31	85	00/85	43	42	Sham laser	Red – infrared	660–970	10	10	-	-	VAS, OHIP-14, QLROH
Škrinjar et al. 2020 [8]	Croatia	61.5	23	03/20	12	11	Sham laser	Red	685	10	2	-	Yes	VAS
de Pedro et al. 2020 [37]	Spain	63.95	20	04/16	20	20	Sham laser	Infrared	810	10	5	-	Yes	VAS, SF‐36, OHIP‐14, Epworth, SCL 90‐R and McGill

OHIP-14 Oral Health Impact Profile-14, NSR numeric rating scale, VAS visual analogue scale, HADS Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, PGI-I Patient Global Impression of Improvement, QLROH quality of life related to oral health, SF-36 Short Form Health Survey, SCL 90‐R Symptom Checklist-90-Revised