Abstract
Objective
The study compares low-level laser therapy with topical medications for treating aphthous ulcers.
Methods
A search of articles in this systematic review was completed in six databases. Treatment and comparative groups comprised of patients subjected to laser therapy and topical medications, respectively. Two different treatment outcomes were considered; pain and size of the lesion. Risk of bias was assessed using the Revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials.
Results
From 109 articles, five randomized control trials fulfilled the selection criteria. The overall sample comprised of 98 males and 232 females, with a mean age of 32.4 years. The laser therapies in each included study had different active media and varying wavelengths. Topical medication used in the comparative group were triamcinolone acetonide, amlexanox, granofurin, and solcoseryl. Findings showed that patients who reported lower pain and decreased aphthous ulcer lesions were more in the laser therapy group than in the topical medication group.
Conclusion
Low-level laser therapy was better in treating aphthous ulcer lesions in comparison to topical medications, and all laser wavelengths in the included reports were seen to be effective. However, the results should be interpreted with caution, because no study demonstrated low-risk of bias in all the assessed domains.
Knowledge Transfer Statement
The current study provides an insight to the clinicians on the treatment of aphthous ulcers by comparing low-level laser therapy with the commonly prescribed topical medications. It is observed that the patients who reported lower pain and decreased aphthous ulcer lesions were more in the laser therapy group than in the topical medication group.
Author Contributions
All authors contributed to design, implement, and draft or revise the article, have agreed on the journal to which the article will be submitted, gave final approval of the version to be published, and agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work.
Disclosure
The authors of the current review do not have any competing interests to declare.