Lasers in Medical Science

, Volume 33, Issue 3, pp 667–674 | Cite as

Laser for bone healing after oral surgery: systematic review

  • Claudio Noba
  • Anna Carolina Volpi Mello-Moura
  • Thais Gimenez
  • Tamara Kerber Tedesco
  • Cacio Moura-Netto
Review Article


The purpose of this study is to perform a systematic review on the use of lasers in oral surgery for bone healing. Selection of articles was carried out by two evaluators in Pubmed and Web of Science databases for published articles and OpenGray for gray literature. Search strategy was developed based on the PICO Question “Does the use of lasers after oral surgery improve bone healing?”. Eligibility criteria were: being on laser; evaluate bone healing; involve oral surgery; do not be about implant, periodontics, orthodontics, osteonecrosis or radiotherapy, nor revisions, clinical cases, etc. Data were collected from each article in a structured spreadsheet and a descriptive analysis was performed. Risk assessment of bias of the articles was carried out through the tool elaborated by the Cochrane collaboration. A total of 827 potentially relevant references were identified. No articles were found in OpenGray. Eleven articles met the eligibility criteria and were included in the systematic review. Most of studies were in vivo and in jaw, being conducted with low-power lasers which were applied immediately after the surgical procedure of extraction. Neoformation and bone density were the outcomes of choice and there was a tendency of increase in bone density, neoformation, regeneration, mineralization, or bone condensation when laser was applied. Regarding the bias risk assessment, studies were not clear in reporting most of the parameters. Low-power laser therapy seems to reduce time of bone healing in oral surgery, although there are no defined protocols and the level of evidence is still considered weak.


Systematic review Lasers Oral surgery Bone regeneration 


Compliance with ethical standards

Ethical approval

Not required. The manuscript is a systematic review and uses only secondary data.

Informed consent

Not applicable.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest and all authors have read and approved the final draft.


  1. 1.
    Yamada K (1991) Biological effects of low power laser irradiation on clonal osteoblastic cells (MC3T3-E1). Nihon Seikeigeka Gakkai Zasshi 65(9):787–799PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Trelles MA, Mayayo E (1987) Bone fracture consolidates faster with low-power laser. Lasers Surg Med 7(1):36–45CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Belkin M, Schwartz M (1989) New biological phenomena associated with laser radiation. Health Phys 56(5):687–690CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Karu T (1989) Photobiology of low-power laser effects. Health Phys 56(5):691–704CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Prados-Frutos JC, Rodriguez-Molinero J, Prados-Privado M, Torres JH, Rojo R (2016) Lack of clinical evidence on low-level laser therapy (LLLT) on dental titanium implant: a systematic review. Lasers Med Sci 31(2):383–392. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Alshehri FA (2016) The role of lasers in the treatment of peri-implant diseases: a review. Saudi Dent J 28(3):103–108. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Han M, Fang H, Li QL, Cao Y, Xia R, Zhang ZH (2016) Effectiveness of laser therapy in the management of recurrent aphthous stomatitis: a systematic review. Scientifica (Cairo) 2016:9062430. Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Paterson D (1984) Treatment of nonunion with a constant direct current: a totally implantable system. Orthop Clin North Am 15(1):47–59PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Childs SG (2003) Stimulators of bone healing. Biologic and biomechanical. Orthop Nurs 22(6):421–428CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 6(7):e1000097. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gotzsche PC, Juni P, Moher D, Oxman AD, Savovic J, Schulz KF, Weeks L, Sterne JA, Cochrane Bias Methods G, Cochrane Statistical Methods G (2011) The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 343:d5928. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kimura-Fujikami T, Cabrera-Munoz ML, Del Valle-Espinoza A (2005) Laser therapy in orthognathic surgery. Gac Med Mex 141(1):27–33PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Monea A, Beresescu G, Boeriu S, Tibor M, Popsor S, Antonescu DM (2016) Erratum to: bone healing after low-level laser application in extraction sockets grafted with allograft material and covered with a resorbable collagen dressing: a pilot histological evaluation. BMC Oral Health 16:16. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kucerova H, Dostalova T, Himmlova L, Bartova J, Mazanek J (2000) Low-level laser therapy after molar extraction. J Clin Laser Med Surg 18(6):309–315PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hamad SA, Naif JS, Abdullah MA (2016) Effect of diode laser on healing of tooth extraction socket: an experimental study in rabbits. J Maxillofac Oral Surg 15(3):308–314. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Romao MM, Marques MM, Cortes AR, Horliana AC, Moreira MS, Lascala CA (2015) Micro-computed tomography and histomorphometric analysis of human alveolar bone repair induced by laser phototherapy: a pilot study. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 44(12):1521–1528. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Zaky AA, El Shenawy HM, Harhsh TA, Shalash M, Awad NM (2016) Can low level laser therapy benefit bone regeneration in localized maxillary cystic defects? - a prospective randomized control trial. Open Access Maced J Med Sci 4(4):720–725. CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    de Almeida JM, de Moraes RO, Gusman DJ, Faleiros PL, Nagata MJ, Garcia VG, Theodoro LH, Bosco AF (2017) Influence of low-level laser therapy on the healing process of autogenous bone block grafts in the jaws of systemically nicotine-modified rats: a histomorphometric study. Arch Oral Biol 75:21–30. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Takeda Y (1988) Irradiation effect of low-energy laser on alveolar bone after tooth extraction. Experimental study in rats. Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg 17(6):388–391CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Nissan J, Assif D, Gross MD, Yaffe A, Binderman I (2006) Effect of low intensity laser irradiation on surgically created bony defects in rats. J Oral Rehabil 33(8):619–924. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Friedman S, Rotstein I, Bab I (1992) Tissue response following CO2 laser application in apical surgery: light microscopic assessment in dogs. Lasers Surg Med 12(1):104–111CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Fukuoka H, Daigo Y, Enoki N, Taniguchi K, Sato H (2011) Influence of carbon dioxide laser irradiation on the healing process of extraction sockets. Acta Odontol Scand 69(1):33–40. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Brawn PR, Kwong-Hing A (2007) Histologic comparison of light emitting diode phototherapy-treated hydroxyapatite-grafted extraction sockets: a same-mouth case study. Implant Dent 16(2):204–211. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Karu TI, Pyatibrat LV, Kolyakov SF, Afanasyeva NI (2005) Absorption measurements of a cell monolayer relevant to phototherapy: reduction of cytochrome c oxidase under near IR radiation. J Photochem Photobiol B 81(2):98–106. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Stein A, Benayahu D, Maltz L, Oron U (2005) Low-level laser irradiation promotes proliferation and differentiation of human osteoblasts in vitro. Photomed Laser Surg 23(2):161–166. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Oliveira FA, Matos AA, Santesso MR, Tokuhara CK, Leite AL, Bagnato VS, Machado MA, Peres-Buzalaf C, Oliveira RC (2016) Low intensity lasers differently induce primary human osteoblast proliferation and differentiation. J Photochem Photobiol B 163:14–21. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, Olkin I, Rennie D, Stroup DF (2000) Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Onkologie 23(6):597–602PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Juni P, Holenstein F, Sterne J, Bartlett C, Egger M (2002) Direction and impact of language bias in meta-analyses of controlled trials: empirical study. Int J Epidemiol 31(1):115–123CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Whiting P, Westwood M, Burke M, Sterne J, Glanville J (2008) Systematic reviews of test accuracy should search a range of databases to identify primary studies. J Clin Epidemiol 61(4):357–364. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Claudio Noba
    • 1
  • Anna Carolina Volpi Mello-Moura
    • 2
  • Thais Gimenez
    • 2
    • 3
  • Tamara Kerber Tedesco
    • 2
    • 3
  • Cacio Moura-Netto
    • 1
  1. 1.Dentistry Post Graduation ProgramUniversidade Cruzeiro do SulSão PauloBrazil
  2. 2.Dentistry Post Graduation ProgramUniversidade IbirapueraSão PauloBrazil
  3. 3.Department of Pediatric Dentistry, School of DentistryUniversity of São PauloSão PauloBrazil

Personalised recommendations