RESUMO
BACKGROUND: This systematic review aimed to assess the effectiveness and safety of aPDT for the treatment of halitosis. METHODS: Search strategies were conducted in October 2021 without language or data restrictions, on the following databases: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL, LILACS and BBO, as well as a manual search. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) with parallel design were considered for inclusion, assessing individuals (adolescents and adults) with a clinical diagnosis of halitosis treated with photodynamic therapy (aPDT). Primary outcomes assessed were halitosis measurements, adverse events and quality of life. The risk of bias for each included study was evaluated with the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool and the certainty of the body of the evidence was assessed with the GRADe approach. RESULTS: Six RCTs (total of 225 participants) were included and due to clinical diversities it was not possible to group the outcome data in meta-analyses. Based on very low-certainty evidence (GRADE) the results showed that, when compared to tongue scraper, aPDT seems to promote a little to no difference in reducing halitosis and in the microbiological analysis. No adverse events were reported. Considering aPDT combined with tongue scraper, better outcome results were observed when compared to tongue scraper alone. CONCLUSIONS: Based on very low-certainty evidence, the findings of this review are uncertain about the effects of aPDT for halitosis control. Further RCTs with higher number of participants and long term assessments need to be conducted to support the use of this intervention. The protocol was registered in the PROSPERO database (number: CRD42020215319) on 19 November 2020-retrospectively registered.
Assuntos
Halitose , Fotoquimioterapia , Adolescente , Adulto , Halitose/diagnóstico , Halitose/tratamento farmacológico , Humanos , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como AssuntoRESUMO
Acne is a dermatosis that affects almost 90% of the adolescent population worldwide and its treatment is performed with retinoids, antimicrobials, acids, and topical or systemic antibiotics. Side effects such as skin irritation in addition to microbial resistance to antibiotics are the main side effects found. Phototherapy with blue light is being used as an alternative treatment. Our objective was to analyze the use of blue light to treat inflammatory acne. We conducted a systematic literature review, following the recommendation PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and MetaAnalyses), including in the sample randomized clinical trial studies that compared blue light with another intervention as control. The research was carried out in the PUBMED and WEB of SCIENCE databases and the methodological quality of the studies evaluated were made by the Cochrane Collaboration Bias Risk Scale. After the exclusion of duplicates, the titles and abstracts of 81 articles were evaluated, and 50 articles were selected for full reading, including in the review at the end 8 articles. Studies have shown significant improvements in the overall picture of acne. It is concluded that despite the great potential in its use in the treatment of acne, there is a need for more detailed trials on the effect of blue light on the treatment of inflammatory acne.
Assuntos
Acne Vulgar , Acne Vulgar/terapia , Adolescente , Antibacterianos , Gerenciamento de Dados , Humanos , Luz , Fototerapia , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Resultado do TratamentoRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Photobiomodulation (PBM) is a non-invasive and non-pharmacological treatment, which, has shown beneficial results in the treatment of temporomandibular disorders (TMD) related pain. This systematic review and meta-analysis study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of photobiomodulation in the treatment of myofascial pain associated with (TMD by analyzing randomized clinical trials published from 2007 to February 2019. The secondary objective of the study was to perform a cost-effectiveness analysis of TMD treatment with photobiomodulation in patients with myofascial pain. MATERIAL AND METHODS: International databases were used: Pubmed, Medline and Web of Science; the initial search raised 316 papers, and only 17 papers met the inclusion criteria for the systematic review (SR). Of these, only 04 papers met the inclusion criteria for meta-analysis: VAS data represented by numerical scores and placebo control group. RESULTS: As for the wavelength, the most used value was 780nm (followed by 830nm. The most used treatment time was 4 offered treatments for 4 weeks; followed by 10 sessions. Regarding periodicity, 9 studies used 2 times a week. The meta-analysis showed that laser-treated groups had painful symptoms improvement that was superior to the control group (mean difference 1.49;95% CI = -1.67; -1.32). Laser therapy showed a cost-effectiveness of $1,464.28 by controlled pain intensity and placebo showed $2,866.20 by controlled pain intensity. CONCLUSIONS: The studies were considered to have moderate quality of evidence. Laser-treated groups had painful symptoms improvement that was superior to the control group and photobiomodulation was more cost-effective than placebo in patients with TMD and myofascial pain. Key words:Temporomandibular disorder, Myofascial pain, Photobiomodulation, Placebo, Cost-effectiveness.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Oral mucositis (OM) is an oral toxicity caused by cancer treatment, found often in patients with head and neck cancer. Low-intensity laser therapy for OM has anti-inflammatory, analgesic, and tissue reparative properties. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this work is to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of the randomized clinical trials of OM laser therapy in patients undergoing treatment for head and neck cancers, followed by a cost-effectiveness analysis of the therapy. METHOD: The search terms, mucositis and phototherapy, laser therapy and mucositis, photobiomodulation and mucositis, and low-level laser therapy and mucositis, were used to search the databases of PubMed, Web of Science, and MEDLINE. Randomized clinical trials were divided into two groups: one treated with laser therapy and the other given a placebo. Only 13 studies were included in the systematic review, and 6 studies in the meta-analysis. RESULTS: The results of the systematic review and meta-analysis show that the laser therapy presented good results in clinical improvement and pain reduction, decreasing the patients' likelihood of developing OM, with degrees of debilitating lesions, to 64% (RR = 0.36 [95% CI = 0.29-0.44]). The cost-effectiveness analysis revealed an incremental cost of R$ 3687.53 for the laser group, with an incremental effectiveness of 132.2. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) was 27.89, for the severe OM cases that were avoided. CONCLUSION: It was concluded, therefore, that photobiomodulation for OM in patients receiving head and neck cancer treatment was clinically effective and cost-effective.