The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the effects of low-level laser therapy (LLLT) on the orthodontic mini-implants (OMI) stability. An unrestricted electronic database search in PubMed, Science Direct, Embase, Scopus, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, LILACS, Google Scholar, and ClinicalTrials.gov and a hand search were performed up to December 2020. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) or non-randomized clinical trials (Non-RCTs) that assessed the effects of LLLT on the OMI stability were included. Data regarding the general information, LLLT characteristics, and outcomes were extracted. The authors performed risk of bias assessment with Cochrane Collaboration’s or ROBINS-I tool. Meta-analysis was also conducted. Five RCTs and one Non-RCT were included and 108 patients were evaluated. The LLLT characteristics presented different wavelength, power, energy density, irradiation time, and protocol duration. Five RCTs had a low risk of selection bias. Two RCTs had a low risk of performance and detection bias. All RCTs had a low risk of attrition bias, reporting bias and other bias. The Non-RCT presented a low risk of bias for all criteria, except for the bias in selection of participants. The meta-analysis revealed that LLLT significantly increased the OMI stability (p < 0.001, Cohen’s d = 0.67) and the highest clinical benefit was showed after 1 (p < 0.001, Cohen’s d = 0.75), 2 (p < 0.001, Cohen’s d = 1.21), and 3 (p < 0.001, Cohen’s d = 1.51) months of OMI placement. LLLT shows positive effects on the OMI stability.

中文翻译：

---

低强度激光治疗对正畸微型种植体稳定性的影响：系统评价和荟萃分析

本系统评价和荟萃分析的目的是评估低强度激光治疗 (LLLT) 对正畸微型种植体 (OMI) 稳定性的影响。截至 2020 年 12 月，在 PubMed、Science Direct、Embase、Scopus、Web of Science、Cochrane Library、LILACS、Google Scholar 和 ClinicalTrials.gov 中进行了不受限制的电子数据库搜索以及手动搜索。随机临床试验 (RCT) 或非随机临床试验 (RCT)包括评估 LLLT 对 OMI 稳定性影响的随机临床试验（非随机对照试验）。提取了有关一般信息、LLLT 特征和结果的数据。作者使用 Cochrane Collaboration 或 ROBINS-I 工具进行了偏倚风险评估。还进行了荟萃分析。纳入了 5 项 RCT 和 1 项非 RCT，评估了 108 名患者。LLLT 特性呈现出不同的波长、功率、能量密度、照射时间和协议持续时间。五项随机对照试验的选择偏倚风险较低。两项 RCT 的表现和检测偏倚风险较低。所有 RCT 的流失偏倚、报告偏倚和其他偏倚风险均较低。非随机对照试验对所有标准的偏倚风险都较低，除了参与者选择的偏倚。荟萃分析显示，LLLT 显着提高了 OMI 稳定性（p < 0.001，Cohen's d = 0.67），并且在 1（p < 0.001，Cohen's d = 0.75）、2（p < 0.001，Cohen's d = 1.21) 和 3 (p < 0.001, Cohen's d = 1.51) 个月的 OMI 放置。LLLT 对 OMI 稳定性有积极影响。五项随机对照试验的选择偏倚风险较低。两项 RCT 的表现和检测偏倚风险较低。所有 RCT 的流失偏倚、报告偏倚和其他偏倚风险均较低。非随机对照试验对所有标准的偏倚风险都较低，除了参与者选择的偏倚。荟萃分析显示，LLLT 显着提高了 OMI 稳定性（p < 0.001，Cohen's d = 0.67），并且在 1（p < 0.001，Cohen's d = 0.75）、2（p < 0.001，Cohen's d = 1.21) 和 3 (p < 0.001, Cohen's d = 1.51) 个月的 OMI 放置。LLLT 对 OMI 稳定性有积极影响。五项随机对照试验的选择偏倚风险较低。两项 RCT 的表现和检测偏倚风险较低。所有 RCT 的流失偏倚、报告偏倚和其他偏倚风险均较低。非随机对照试验对所有标准的偏倚风险都较低，除了参与者选择的偏倚。荟萃分析显示，LLLT 显着提高了 OMI 稳定性（p < 0.001，Cohen's d = 0.67），并且在 1（p < 0.001，Cohen's d = 0.75）、2（p < 0.001，Cohen's d = 1.21) 和 3 (p < 0.001, Cohen's d = 1.51) 个月的 OMI 放置。LLLT 对 OMI 稳定性有积极影响。除了参与者选择的偏差。荟萃分析显示，LLLT 显着提高了 OMI 稳定性（p < 0.001，Cohen's d = 0.67），并且在 1（p < 0.001，Cohen's d = 0.75）、2（p < 0.001，Cohen's d = 1.21) 和 3 (p < 0.001, Cohen's d = 1.51) 个月的 OMI 放置。LLLT 对 OMI 稳定性有积极影响。除了参与者选择的偏差。荟萃分析显示，LLLT 显着提高了 OMI 稳定性（p < 0.001，Cohen's d = 0.67），并且在 1（p < 0.001，Cohen's d = 0.75）、2（p < 0.001，Cohen's d = 1.21) 和 3 (p < 0.001, Cohen's d = 1.51) 个月的 OMI 放置。LLLT 对 OMI 稳定性有积极影响。