Ge M K, He W L, Chen J, Wen C, Yin X, Hu Z A, Liu Z P, Zou S J
State Key Laboratory of Oral Diseases, Department of Orthodontics, West China Hospital of Stomatology, Sichuan University, 14 Section 3 South Ren Min Road, 610041, Chengdu, China.
Lasers Med Sci. 2015 Jul;30(5):1609-18. doi: 10.1007/s10103-014-1538-z. Epub 2014 Feb 20.
This review aimed to evaluate the efficacy of low-level laser therapy (LLLT) for accelerating tooth movement during orthodontic treatment. An extensive electronic search was conducted by two reviewers. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs concerning the efficacy of LLLT for accelerating tooth movement during orthodontic treatment were searched in CENTRAL, Medline, PubMed, Embase, China Biology Medicine Disc (CBM), China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and Google Scholar. Six RCTs and three quasi-RCTs, involving 211 patients from six countries, were selected from 173 relevant studies. All nine articles were feasible for the systematic review and meta-analysis, five of which were assessed as moderate risk of bias, while the rest were assessed as high risk of bias. The mean difference and the 95 % confidence interval (95 % CI) of accumulative moved distance of teeth were observed among all the researches. The results showed that the LLLT could accelerate orthodontic tooth movement (OTM) in 7 days (mean difference 0.19, 95 % CI [0.02, 0.37], p = 0.03) and 2 months (mean difference 1.08, 95 % CI [0.16, 2.01], p = 0.02). Moreover, a relatively lower energy density (5 and 8 J/cm(2)) was seemingly more effective than 20 and 25 J/cm(2) and even higher ones.
本综述旨在评估低强度激光治疗（LLLT）在正畸治疗中加速牙齿移动的疗效。两名评价者进行了广泛的电子检索。在CENTRAL、Medline、PubMed、Embase、中国生物医学文献数据库（CBM）、中国知网（CNKI）和谷歌学术中检索了关于LLLT在正畸治疗中加速牙齿移动疗效的随机对照试验（RCT）和半随机对照试验（quasi - RCT）。从173项相关研究中筛选出6项RCT和3项quasi - RCT，涉及来自6个国家的211例患者。所有9篇文章均适合进行系统评价和Meta分析，其中5篇被评估为偏倚风险中等，其余被评估为偏倚风险高。观察所有研究中牙齿累计移动距离的平均差和95%置信区间（95%CI）。结果显示，LLLT可在7天（平均差0.19，95%CI[0.02，0.37]，p = 0.03）和2个月（平均差1.08，95%CI[0.16，2.01]，p = 0.02）时加速正畸牙齿移动（OTM）。此外，相对较低的能量密度（5和8 J/cm²）似乎比20和25 J/cm²甚至更高的能量密度更有效。
