Skip to main content
Download PDF

The effectiveness of low-level laser therapy and low-intensity pulsed ultrasound in reducing pain induced by orthodontic separation: a randomized controlled trial

BMC Oral Health volume 24, Article number: 166 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

The low-level laser therapy (LLLT) and low-intensity pulsed ultrasound (LIPUS) have been recently applied to control pain during orthodontic treatment.

Objective

To evaluate and compare the effectiveness of LLLT and LIPUS in reducing pain induced by orthodontic separation.

Study design

A single-blinded randomized controlled trial.

Methods

One hundred and fifty patients were randomly assigned into three groups; LLLT group, LIPUS group, and control group. After 5 min from the separators’ placement, the first dose of the laser or the ultrasound was applied, the second dose was applied after 24 h, and the third dose was applied after 48 h on both maxillary and mandibular first molars. The exposure of laser was for 20 s at each point (maxillary and mandibular first molars), with an 810-nm aluminum-gallium-arsenide (AlGaAs) diode laser on continuous mode. The output power set at 150 mW, the energy density of 4 J/cm2, and a laser spot diameter of 7 mm were applied. Whereas the frequency of ultrasonic toothbrush was 1.6 MHz; and average output intensity was 0.2 W/cm2. The application was for 20 min (5 min on each first molar). The control group received the separators without another intervention. A Visual Analog Scale (VAS 100 mm) was used to assess pain intensity at several time intervals during the first four days after the separators’ placement.

Results

A total of 145 patients were assessed. There was a significant difference in pain perception among the three groups after 5 min (P = .002). The maximum pain level was reached after 24 h. However, the laser group and the ultrasound group showed a statistically significant decrease in pain scores compared to the control group at all the assessment time points (P < .001). Whereas there was no difference between the laser group and the ultrasound group in reducing the pain scores (P > .05).

Conclusions

The LLLT and the LIPUS effectively reduce the separation pain when applied in multiple doses without differences between them.

Trial registration

This trial was registered with the German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS). (https://www.drks.de/drks_web/navigate.do?navigationId=trial.HTML&TRIAL_ID= DRKS00029991). Date of registration: 26/08/2022.

Peer Review reports

Background

Teeth movement causes many side effects during the orthodontic treatment, pain is the foremost expected side impact, which is an annoying sense that causes an unpleasant experience [1, 2].

The pain perception and its sensation differentiate depending on how interpreted by different individuals in response to a stimulus, so it differs according to age, gender, psychological condition, and cultural aspects [3]. The pain sensation is related to other orthodontic procedures such as the placement of separating elastics, insertion of arch-wires and their subsequent activation, bracket removal, as well as the effects of orthopedic forces [4]. The pain sensation related to orthodontic procedures reaches its peak after 24 h and tends to decline after four days [5].

To control discomfort and pain during orthodontic treatment, different pharmacological and non-pharmacological methods were used [6], such as photobiomodulation (low-level laser, LED) [7, 8], and low-intensity pulsed ultrasound (LIPUS) treatment [9].

Because of its anti-inflammatory properties and regenerative effect on neurons, low-level laser therapy (LLLT) was used to control pain [4, 7]. These effects were attributed to the photobioactive reaction that stimulates the proliferation and differentiation of cells [10].

Several studies showed that LLLT reduced orthodontic pain [4, 7, 11]. While in contrast, other studies showed no significant pain reduction occurred with lasers compared to a placebo [8, 12, 13]. However, it is hypothesized that a more frequent application of laser therapy during the pain/discomfort period might lead to a more recognized reduction in the perception of pain in orthodontic patients [8].

Ultrasound was widely used in medicine as a therapeutic, operative, and diagnostic tool, and recently for pain management [9, 14]. It is generally accepted that LIPUS has no harmful, carcinogenic, or thermal effects to produce biological changes in living tissues [15, 16]. Regarding the LIPUS in reducing pain, only two trials assessed its impact on orthodontic pain [9, 17]. One of them assessed the effect of LIPUS on reducing pain related to canine retraction [9], the other one evaluated its effect of minimizing the pain induced by orthodontic separation [17]. The LIPUS was applied extra-orally in both trials.

Because of its easy use, the ultrasound toothbrush had more interest recently. Some trials evaluated its role in enhancing the health of the periodontal tissues during the orthodontic treatment [18,19,20,21]. Since the 1960s, the electric brushes have been modified. More recently, ultrasonic toothbrushes were introduced. Even though the results of various studies have not shown conclusive evidence for ultrasonic brushing effectiveness, the technology might have many advantages compared to other manual and extraoral devices. As the facility of its use encourage us to expert its effectiveness in reducing the orthodontic pain, which many patients face it during the orthodontic treatment, and may prevent some of them from completing their treatment. On the other hand, the high cost of the ultrasonic toothbrushes is one of their disadvantages [19].

According to our knowledge, no studies assessed the impact of LIPUS as a toothbrush in reducing separation pain. In addition, the comparison between the effectiveness of LLLT and LIPUS in reducing orthodontic pain was not also evaluated. Therefore, the purpose of the current study is to evaluate the effectiveness of LLLT and LIPUS in reducing pain induced by orthodontic separation and to compare them. The null hypothesis was that the application of the LLLT or the LIPUS toothbrush does not reduce the separation pain.

Methods

Trial design

The Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) checklist was used as a guideline for conducting and reporting this trial [22]. This trial was a three-arm clinical randomized controlled trial; the design was clarified in Fig. 1. It was approved by the Local Ethics Committee of the University of Damascus, Dental School, Syria (UDDS-708-01092020/SRC-3286), and was registered with the German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS). (https://www.drks.de/drks_web/navigate.do?navigationId=trial.HTML&TRIAL_ID= DRKS00029991).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Research design flow chart

Full size image

Participants

Patients were recruited between August 2022 and February 2023 in the Department of Orthodontics, Damascus University.

Inclusion criteria

Patients aged between 18 and 25 years with complete eruption of all four first permanent molars were included. Tight interproximal contacts points to adjacent second premolar and second permanent molar must be found with no caries and restorations on posterior teeth.

Exclusion criteria

Patients with previous orthodontic treatment; severely rotated first or second molars; metabolic and periodontal diseases or medications were excluded.

Clinical interventions

After 5 min of 2.1 mm elastomeric separators placement (Dentalastics Separators, Dentaurum, Ispringen, Germany), subjects of group A underwent low-level laser therapy using soft tissue diode LASER (Mercury-Dual, Pioon Medical Laser, China) (Fig. 2). They were exposed at 8 points (cervical and apical) on the buccal and lingual mucosa (mesially and distally).

Fig. 2
figure 2

LLLT device

Full size image

The exposure was for 20 s at each point, with an 810-nm aluminum-gallium-arsenide (AlGaAs) diode laser on continuous mode, and output power set at 150 mW, an energy density of 4 J/cm2, and a laser spot diameter of 7 mm. Which was on both maxillary and mandibular first molars. The application was repeated after 24, 48 h with close contact between the laser device tip and mucosa (Fig. 3).

Fig. 3
figure 3

Application of the LLLT on the first molars

Full size image

Subjects in group B were exposed to the ultrasound toothbrush (Emmi Ultrasonic Co, Morfelden-Waldorf, Germany) (Fig. 4), which generates a frequency of 1.6 MHz; and average output intensity of 0.2 W/cm2. The application was for 20 min (5 min on each first molar) after 5 min from separators’ placement, then after 24 and 48 h with no motivation (according to the manufacturer company information).

Fig. 4
figure 4

LIPUS toothbrush

Full size image

The toothbrush was placed with an angle of 90 degrees to the gingiva for 4 min, then placed vertically on the occlusion surface for 1 min (for each molar) (Fig. 5). Subjects in group C were treated as controls without another intervention after the separators’ placement.

Fig. 5
figure 5

Application of the LIPUS on the first molars

Full size image

Outcomes assessment (pain assessment)

The three groups were asked to mark pain severity on a questionnaire containing eight copies of a 100 mm visual analog scale [23] at 5 min, 1, 6, 12, 24, 48, 72, and 96 h after the separators’ placement.

Sample size calculation

The sample size was calculated using G-Power software (Version 3.0.10 Universitate Keil, Germany), assuming that the effect size of the variable (pain) is 0.549, depending on Kim et al. 2013 (8). When paired t-test with a significance level of 5% and a power of 95% was employed, 138 patients were required to assign randomly into three groups: LLLT group (n = 46), LIPUS group (n = 46), and control group (n = 46). A 10% attrition percentage was added to compensate for any possible attrition. The total sample size was 150 (50 patients per group).

Randomization, allocation concealment, and blinding

Computer-generated randomization lists with an allocation ratio of 1:1:1 were conducted by an academic staff member (not involved in this research) using Minitab®, v. 17 (Minitab Inc., State College, USA). The allocation sequence was concealed using sequentially numbered, opaque, sealed envelopes which were opened only when the separators were placed. Blinding of personnel and participants were not applicable. Therefore, blinding was applied only for the outcomes’ assessor.

Statistical analysis

All the statistical analysis was conducted using software program Statistical Package for Social Sciences (IBM SPSS Data Editor Version 24, USA). The Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used to assess the distribution of data. Data were not normally distributed; thus, the non-parametric tests were applied. Kruskal-Wallis was used to compare the three groups, and post-hoc Mann-Whitney U test was applied to compare each two groups. Friedman test was used to compare the time intervals in each group, followed by Wilcoxon test. Bonferroni correction was applied to compensate for multiple comparison. The significance level was set at 0.05. One author (XXX), who was blinded to all measurements, performed the statistical analysis.

Results

One hundred and seventy patients were assessed in this trial. Out of them, 150 patients met the inclusion criteria and assigned to the three groups (50 patients per group). Two patients lost to follow-up due to personal reasons in the laser group. One patient did not receive the allocated intervention in the ultrasound group, and another patient was excluded due to irregularities in his VAS chart completion. One patient did not come to the determined appointments in the control group. Consequently, one hundred and forty-five patients (70 males and 75 females aged from 18 to 25 years) were enrolled in this study.

Patients’ allocation and follow-up are given in Fig. 6. The basic characteristics of the sample are shown in Table 1. The follow-up duration was four days.

Fig. 6
figure 6

CONSORT flow diagram

Full size image
Table 1 Baseline characteristics of the three groups
Full size table

There were no significant differences in age and gender among the laser, ultrasound, and control groups (P = .823, 0.304, respectively) (Table 1). There was a significant difference in pain perception among the three groups after 5 min (pain scores were as following: LLLT 4.16, LIPUS 4.06, and Control 16.45) (P = .002) (Table 2). Both the laser group and the ultrasound group showed a statistically significant decrease in pain scores compared to the control group (P < .001), with no differences between the laser group and the ultrasound group in reducing the pain scores (P > .05) (Table 3). On the other hand, gender had no significant effect on pain perception scores at all the assessment points (P > .05).

Table 2 Means and standard deviations of pain scores in the LLLT and LIPUS and control groups at different time points
Full size table

The maximum pain level was reached after 24 h of the separators’ placement in the three groups. The laser group had a mean score of (12.70 ± 9.50), whereas the mean score in the ultrasound group was (11.35 ± 9.60), which was significantly lower than that in the control group (57.91 ± 27.20). The pain scores of the three groups decreased from the second to the fourth day after the separators’ placement. In all groups, there were significant differences between pain scores at most different time points (Supplementary Tables 1, 2, 3).

Table 3 The multiple comparisons between the LLLT, the LIPUS, and the control groups at different time points
Full size table

Discussion

This trial aimed to evaluate and compare the effect of multiple applications of LLLT and LIPUS on reducing the pain associated with the placement of orthodontic separators. The laser used in this trial was the soft tissue diode laser (AlGaAs), with a wavelength of 810 nm. The energy dose of 1.5 W was applied at eight buccal and lingual points. The application was performed for three doses. Regarding the results of the current trial, the null hypothesis was rejected.

There was a significant decrease in the pain scores at all the assessment time points when the LLLT was applied compared to the control group, which was in agreement with many previous studies [7, 11, 24,25,26,27,28]. Otherwise, Kim et al. found that the LLLT reduces the separation pain only after the first day from placement of separators when compared with placebo and control groups [8]. Furthermore, Abtahi et al. [12], AlSayed Hasan et al. [13] and Furquim et al. [29] found no significant difference between the laser group and the placebo, which might be explained by the fact that the application of laser was different (type of the laser, wavelength, doses, and the placement of application). Moreover, another limitation observed in one of the previous studies was that the method used in the sample calculation was unclear [12].

Laser irradiation has a variety of effects on tissues, and that depends on the wavelength of laser. The beneficial action of laser irradiation is the result of free radical reactions including activation of cells (leucocytes, fibroblasts, and keratinocytes) which is expressed in production of protein and cytokines, and cell proliferation. All these events are the basic of the therapeutic action of laser therapy [30,31,32,33]. However, the low-level laser therapy may have a placebo effect on the pain related to orthodontic procedures, which needs more studies to detect it.

Ultrasound was used in this trial as a toothbrush (Emmi Ultrasonic Co, Morfelden-Waldorf, Germany, which generates a frequency of 1.6 megahertz and an average output intensity of 0.2 W/centemetre2) to verify its effectiveness in controlling orthodontic separation pain. According to our knowledge, there were no studies assessed the effect of this toothbrush on this topic.

The results showed that the pain levels were significantly lower than those in the control group. Regarding the comparison of pain management between the LLLT group and the LIPUS group, the pain scores were similar in both groups with no significant differences.

Concerning the previous studies, there were only two trials assessed the effect of LIPUS on reducing orthodontic pain [9, 17]. However, these two trials applied the LIPUS extra-orally. One trial evaluated the pain perception after placement of separators and found that the ultrasound decreased the pain significantly [17]. The other trial assessed the pain perception during canine retraction and applied it extra orally over the length of the maxillary canine root [9]. The results of this trial showed that the LIPUS was not effective in reducing pain. This different result might be explained by the different pain perceptions of the canine retraction compared to the molar separation.

Regarding the ultrasonic toothbrush mechanism, the manufacturer suggests that the sonic waves (because they are transmitted subgingivally for about 12 mm) might have an effect on the substances that existence in the periodontal area.

The patients reported the maximum pain level after 24 h of separator placement in the three groups. This agrees with the results of many previous studies [24, 34,35,36], which linked that with the peak level of prostaglandins. There was a remarkable decline in the severity of pain in all groups on days 2 and 3 after the separation, the probable reason that the period of 2 to 4 days is considered critical after the orthodontic procedure on the inflammatory process of the periodontal ligament [37].

Despite the good effect of low-level laser therapy and ultrasound toothbrush on relieving the separation pain, the high cost of both procedures may be an obstacle for some patients. Although the low-level laser is not cost effective, the beneficial effects of multiple applications and the pain relief induced explain the importance of this procedure.

According to the current study, both laser and ultrasound can effectively control the intensity of separation pain. However, this is the first study performed to compare the LLLT and LIPUS toothbrushes in reducing separation pain. Moreover, assessment of the effect of the LIPUS on minimizing the pain associated with different stages of orthodontic treatment and comparison with LLLT efficacy is needed.

Limitations and generalizability

Despite the rigorous procedures related to sample construction, applied interferences, and data collection, the study findings generalizability are still limited because the pain sensation is a personal experience, so it could not be determined accurately by all participants. Another limitation is that bringing patients into the practice for three consecutive days for the application might not be welcomed by the participants; however the application of LIPUS toothbrush can be applied by the patient himself/herself at home. Nevertheless, the current trial findings might be considered representative to an acceptable extent.

Conclusions

The multiple doses of the LLLT and the LIPUS were effective in reducing the pain induced by orthodontic separation, and there was no difference between them in the separation pain control.

Data availability

The data used and analysed during the current trial is available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

  1. Sandhu SS, Sandhu J. Effect of physical activity level on orthodontic pain perception and analgesic consumption in adolescents. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2015;148(4):618–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2015.04.037.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Carroll JD. Tooth movement in orthodontic treatment systematic review omitted significant articles. Photomed Laser Surg. 2014;32(5):310–1. https://doi.org/10.1089/pho.2014.9861.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Krishnan V. Orthodontic pain: from causes to management—a review. Eur J Ortho. 2007;29(2):170–9. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjl081.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Owayda AM, Hajeer MY, Murad RM, Al-Sabbagh R. The efficacy of low-level laser therapy versus Paracetamol–caffeine in controlling orthodontic separation pain and changes in the oral-health-related quality of life in Class I malocclusions: a 3-arm, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial. JWFO. 2022;11(3):75–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejwf.2022.01.001.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Burstone CJ. Aplicación de la bioingenieria a la ortodoncia clínica. Ortodoncia: Principios y técnicas actuales. 2017;3:154.

  6. Sandhu SS, Cheema MS, Khehra HS. Comparative effectiveness of pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic interventions for orthodontic pain relief at peak pain intensity: a bayesian network meta-analysis. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2016;150(1):13–32. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2015.12.025.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Almallah MME, Hajeer MY, Almahdi WH, Burhan AS, Latifeh Y, Madkhaneh SK. Assessment of a single versus double application of low-level laser therapy in pain reduction following orthodontic elastomeric separation: a randomized controlled trial. Dent Med Probl. 2020;57(1):45–52. https://doi.org/10.17219/dmp/113332.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Kim WT, Bayome M, Park J-B, Park JH, Baek S-H, Kook Y-A. Effect of frequent laser irradiation on orthodontic pain: a single-blind randomized clinical trial. Angle Orthod. 2013;83(4):611–6. https://doi.org/10.2319/082012-665.1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Qamruddin I, Alam MK, Mahroof V, Karim M, Fida M, Khamis MF, et al. Biostimulatory effects of low-intensity pulsed ultrasound on rate of orthodontic tooth movement and associated pain, applied at 3-week intervals: a split-mouth study. Pain Res Manag. 2021;2021. https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/6624723.

  10. Verschueren R, Koudstaal J, Oldhoff J. The carbon dioxide laser; some possibilities in surgery. ACB. 1975;74(2):197–204.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Qamruddin I, Alam MK, Fida M, Khan AG. Effect of a single dose of low-level laser therapy on spontaneous and chewing pain caused by elastomeric separators. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2016;149(1):62–6. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2015.06.024.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Abtahi SM, Mousavi SA, Shafaee H, Tanbakuchi B. Effect of low-level laser therapy on dental pain induced by separator force in orthodontic treatment. J Dent Res. 2013;10(5):647–51.

    Google Scholar 

  13. AlSayed Hasan MMA, Sultan K, Hamadah O. Evaluating low-level laser therapy effect on reducing orthodontic pain using two laser energy values: a split-mouth randomized placebo-controlled trial. Eur J Ortho. 2018;40(1):23–8. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjx013.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Namera MO, Mahmoud G, Abdulhadi A, Burhan A. Effects of low-intensity pulsed ultrasound (LIPUS) applied on the temporomandibular joint (TMJ) region on the functional treatment of class II malocclusion: a randomized controlled trial. Dent Med Probl. 2020;57(1):53–60. https://doi.org/10.17219/dmp/112321.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Sato M, Nagata K, Kuroda S, Horiuchi S, Nakamura T, Karima M, et al. Low-intensity pulsed ultrasound activates integrin-mediated mechanotransduction pathway in synovial cells. Ann Biomed Eng. 2014;42(10):2156–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Tanaka E, Kuroda S, Horiuchi S, Tabata A, El-Bialy T. Low-intensity pulsed ultrasound in dentofacial tissue engineering. Ann Biomed Eng. 2015;43(4):871–86.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Badiee M, Tehranchi A, Behnia P, Khatibzadeh K. Efficacy of low-intensity pulsed Ultrasound for Orthodontic Pain Control: a Randomized Clinical Trial. FID. 2021;18. https://doi.org/10.18502/fid.v18i38.7607.

  18. Bains VK, Mohan R, Bains R. Application of ultrasound in periodontics: part II. J Indian Soc Periodontol. 2008;12(3):55–61. https://doi.org/10.4103/0972-124X.44096.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Costa MR, Silva VC, Miqui MN, Sakima T, Spolidorio DMP, Cirelli JA. Efficacy of ultrasonic, electric and manual toothbrushes in patients with fixed orthodontic appliances. Angle Orthod. 2007;77(2):361–6. https://doi.org/10.2319/0003-3219(2007)077[0361:EOUEAM]2.0.CO;2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Hashizume LN, Dariva A. Effect of Sonic vibration of an ultrasonic toothbrush on the removal of Streptococcus mutans biofilm from enamel surface. Am J Dent. 2015;28(6):347–50.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Saruttichart T, Chantarawaratit P-o, Leevailoj C, Thanyasrisung P, Pitiphat W, Matangkasombut O. Effectiveness of a motionless ultrasonic toothbrush in reducing plaque and gingival inflammation in patients with fixed orthodontic appliances. Angle Orthod. 2017;87(2):279–85. https://doi.org/10.2319/042516-334.1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D. CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. J Pharmacol Pharmacother. 2010;1(2):100–7. https://doi.org/10.4103/0976-500X.72352.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Sudhakar V, Vinodhini T, Mohan AM, Srinivasan B, Rajkumar B. The efficacy of different pre-and post-operative analgesics in the management of pain after orthodontic separator placement: a randomized clinical trial. Pharm Bioallied sci. 2014;6(Suppl 1):80–S84. https://doi.org/10.4103/0975-7406.137393.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Eslamian L, Borzabadi-Farahani A, Hassanzadeh-Azhiri A, Badiee MR, Fekrazad R. The effect of 810-nm low-level laser therapy on pain caused by orthodontic elastomeric separators. LIMS. 2014;29(2):559–64.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Farias RD, Closs LQ, Miguens SAQ Jr. Evaluation of the use of low-level laser therapy in pain control in orthodontic patients: a randomized split-mouth clinical trial. Angle Orthod. 2016;86(2):193–8. https://doi.org/10.2319/122214-933.1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Farias RD, Motta RH. Low-level laser therapy for controlling pain in orthodontic patients during the use of elastic separators: randomized clinical trial. Laser Phys Lett. 2018;15(9):095602. https://doi.org/10.1088/1612-202X/aad1c1.

    Article  ADS  Google Scholar 

  27. Nóbrega C, da Silva EMK, de Macedo CR. Low-level laser therapy for treatment of pain associated with orthodontic elastomeric separator placement: a placebo-controlled randomized double-blind clinical trial. Photomed Laser Surg. 2013;31(1):10–6. https://doi.org/10.1089/pho.2012.3338.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. RUMÃO WL, VALDRIGHI HC, FURLETTI VF, GOUVÊA GR, SANTAMARIA-JR M. Influence of photobiomodulation on pain perception during initial orthodontic tooth movement. Rev Odontol UNESP. 2020;49:e20200003. https://doi.org/10.1590/1807-2577.00320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Furquim RD, Pascotto RC, Rino Neto J, Cardoso JR, Ramos AL. Low-level laser therapy effects on pain perception related to the use of orthodontic elastomeric separators. Dent Press J Orthod. 2015;20:37–42. https://doi.org/10.1590/2176-9451.20.3.037-042.oar.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Bayani S, Rostami S, Ahrari F, Saeedipouya I. A randomized clinical trial comparing the efficacy of bite wafer and low level laser therapy in reducing pain following initial arch wire placement. Laser Ther. 2016;25(2):121–9. https://doi.org/10.5978/islsm.16-OR-10.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Jahanbin A, Ramazanzadeh B, Ahrari F, Forouzanfar A, Beidokhti M. Effectiveness of Er: YAG laser-aided fiberotomy and low-level laser therapy in alleviating relapse of rotated incisors. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2014;146(5):565–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajodo.2014.07.006.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Li F, Zhang J, Zeng X, Guo Y. Low-level laser therapy for orthodontic pain: a systematic review. LIMS. 2015;30:1789–803. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10103-014-1661-x.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Jawad MM, Husein A, Alam MK, Hassan R, Shaari R. Overview of non-invasive factors (low level laser and low intensity pulsed ultrasound) accelerating tooth movement during orthodontic treatment. Lasers Med Sci. 2014;29:367–72. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10103-012-1199-8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Fujiyama K, Deguchi T, Murakami T, Fujii A, Kushima K, Takano-Yamamoto T. Clinical effect of CO2 laser in reducing pain in orthodontics. Angle Orthod. 2008;78(2):299–303. https://doi.org/10.2319/033007-153.1.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Kaya Y, Alkan Ö, Kömüroglu AU, Keskin S. Effects of Ibuprofen and low-level laser therapy on orthodontic pain by means of the analysis of interleukin 1-beta and substance P levels in the gingival crevicular fluid. J Orofac Orthop. 2021;82(3):143–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Ngan P, Kess B, Wilson S. Perception of discomfort by patients undergoing orthodontic treatment. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1989;96(1):47–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/0889-5406(89)90228-X.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Oliver R, Knapman Y. Attitudes to orthodontic treatment. Br j Orthod. 1985;12(4):179–88. https://doi.org/10.1179/bjo.12.4.179.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

This trial was not funded.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, Faculty of Dental Medicine, Damascus University, Al-Mazzeh Street, Damascus, Syria

    Lama Mohammad Saffouh Al-Hanbali, Ahmad Sharafeddin Burhan & Mohammad Younis Hajeer

  2. Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Faculty of Dental Medicine, Syrian Private University, Daraa, Syria

    Fehmieh Rafik Nawaya

Authors
  1. Lama Mohammad Saffouh Al-Hanbali
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ahmad Sharafeddin Burhan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Mohammad Younis Hajeer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Fehmieh Rafik Nawaya
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

L.M.H followed up with the patients, collected data, participated in statistical analysis, and drafted the manuscript. A.S.B supervised the work, helped in statistical data analysis, assisted in interpreting the findings, and participated in writing the manuscript. M.Y.H and F.R.N co-supervised this research and helped in data analysis and writing-up. All authors reviewed and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lama Mohammad Saffouh Al-Hanbali.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This trial was approved by the Local Ethics Committee of the University of Damascus, Dental School, Syria (UDDS-708-01092020/SRC-3286). The participants get the informed consent to make an informed decision. All experiments were performed in accordance to the Declarations of Helsinki.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary Material 1

Supplementary Material 2

Supplementary Material 3

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Al-Hanbali, L., Burhan, A., Hajeer, M. et al. The effectiveness of low-level laser therapy and low-intensity pulsed ultrasound in reducing pain induced by orthodontic separation: a randomized controlled trial. BMC Oral Health 24, 166 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-024-03926-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-024-03926-2

Keywords

BMC Oral Health

ISSN: 1472-6831

Contact us