Photobiomodulation therapy (PBMT) is an effective treatment modality, which has the significant advantage of enhancing a patient’s quality of life (QoL) by minimising the side effects of oral cancer treatments, as well as assisting in the management of potentially cancerous lesions. It is important to note that the major evidence-based documentation neither considers, nor tackles, the issues related to the impact of PBMT on tumour progression and on the downregulation of cellular proliferation improvement, by identifying the dose- and time-dependency. Moreover, little is known about the risk of this therapy and its safety when it is applied to the tumour, or the impact on the factor of QoL. The review aimed to address the benefits and limitations of PBMT in premalignant oral lesions, as well as the conflicting evidence concerning the relationship between tumour cell proliferation and the applied dose of photonic energy (fluence) in treating oral mucositis induced by head and neck cancer (H&N) treatments. The objective was to appraise the current concept of PBMT safety in the long-term, along with its latent impact on tumour reaction. This review highlighted the gap in the literature and broaden the knowledge of the current clinical evidence-based practice, and effectiveness, of PBMT in H&N oncology patients. As a result, the authors concluded that PBMT is a promising treatment modality. However, due to the heterogeneity of our data, it needs to undergo further testing in well-designed, long-term and randomised controlled trial studies, to evaluate it with diligent and impartial outcomes, and ensure laser irradiation’s safety at the tumour site.

This systematic review and meta-analysis (PROSPERO registration; ref CRD 42020198921) aimed to govern photobiomodulation therapy (PBMT) efficacy in temporomandibular disorder (TMD). PRISMA guidelines and Cochrane Collaboration recommendations were followed. Differences in pain reduction assessment by qualitative measurement with visual analogue scale (VAS), pain pressure threshold (PPT) and maximum mouth opening (MMO) were calculated with 95% confidence intervals and pooled in a random effects model with a subgroup analysis, evaluating the role of follow-up duration. Heterogeneity was analysed using Q and I² tests. Publication bias was assessed by visual examination of funnel plot symmetry. Qualitative analysis revealed 46% of the 44 included studies showed a high risk of bias. Meta-analysis on 32 out of 44 studies revealed statistically significant intergroup differences (SSID) for VAS (SMD = −0.55; 95% CI = −0.82 to −0.27; Z = 3.90 (p < 0.001)), PPT (SMD = −0.45; 95% CI = −0.89 to 0.00; Z = 1.97 (p = 0.05)) and MMO (SMD = −0.45; 95% CI = −0.89 to 0.00; Z = 1.97 (p = 0.05)), favouring PBMT compared to control treatment strategies. Sensitivity analysis revealed SSID (SMD = −0.53; 95% CI = −0.73 to −0.32; Z = 5.02 (p < 0.0001)) with low heterogeneity (Τ² = 0.02; χ² = 16.03 (p = 0.31); I² = 13%). Hence, this review, for first time, proposed suggested recommendations for PBMT protocols and methodology for future extensive TMD research.

Initially, the SARS-CoV-2 virus was considered as a pneumonia virus; however, a series of peer reviewed medical papers published in the last eight months suggest that this virus attacks the brain, heart, intestine, nervous and vascular systems, as well the blood stream. Although many facts remain unknown, an objective appraisal of the current scientific literature addressing the latest progress on COVID-19 is required. The aim of the present study was to conduct a critical review of the literature, focusing on the current molecular structure of SARS-CoV-2 and prospective treatment modalities of COVID-19. The main objectives were to collect, scrutinize and objectively evaluate the current scientific evidence-based information, as well to provide an updated overview of the topic that is ongoing. The authors underlined potential prospective therapies, including vaccine and phototherapy, as a monotherapy or combined with current treatment modalities. The authors concluded that this review has produced high quality evidence, which can be utilized by the clinical scientific community for future reference, as the knowledge and understanding of the SARS-CoV-2 virus are evolving, in terms of its epidemiological, pathogenicity, and clinical manifestations, which ultimately map the strategic path, towards an effective and safe treatment and production of a reliable and potent vaccine.

This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) efficacy in periodontitis. The review protocol was conducted in accordance with PRISMA statements, Cochrane Collaboration recommendations and is registered in PROSPERO (CRD 42020161516). Electronic and hand search strategies were undertaken to gather data on in vivo human RCTs followed by qualitative analysis. Differences in probing pocket depth (PPD) and clinical attachment level (CAL) were calculated with 95% confidence intervals and pooled in random effects model at three and six months. Heterogeneity was analyzed, using Q and I² tests. Publication bias was assessed by visual examination of the funnel plot symmetry. Sixty percent of 31 eligible studies showed a high risk of bias. Meta-analysis on 18 studies showed no additional benefit in split mouth studies in terms of PPD reduction (SMD 0.166; 95% CI −0.278 to 0.611; P = 0.463) and CAL gain (SMD 0.092; 95% CI −0.013 to 0.198; P = 0.088). Similar findings noted for parallel group studies; PPD reduction (SMD 0.076; 95% CI −0.420 to 0.573; P = 0.763) and CAL gain (SMD 0.056; 95% CI −0.408 to 0.552; P = 0.745). Sensitivity analysis minimized heterogeneity for both outcome variables; however, intergroup differences were not statistically significant. Future research should aim for well-designed RCTs in order to determine the effectiveness of aPDT.

Mitochondrial homeostasis is crucial for energy production and neuronal survival in neurological primary burning mouth syndrome (npBMS). Photobiomodulation therapy (PBMT) has been utilised in npBMS management, however, its role of intervention remains controversial. The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis of CRD 42020198921 PROSPERO registration reference was to oversee and determine the efficacy of PBMT in patients with npBMS, identifying the gaps and bridge them by proposing recommendations for future studies purposes. PRISMA guidelines and Cochrane Collaboration recommendations followed. Various search engines employed to analyse a total of 351 studies of which 12 were included. A wide range of utilised PBM wavelengths was between 635–980 nm and the power output ranged between 30 mW and 4000 mW. A high risk of bias (RoB) was noted in 7 out of 12 included studies (58.3%), as results of qualitative analysis. Meta-analysis findings of 4 out of 12 studies showed statistically significant intergroup differences (SSID) for visual analogue scale (VAS) values (MD = −1.47; 95% CI = −2.40 to −0.53; Z = 3.07 (p = 0.002) whereas meta-analysis on 5 out of 12 studies revealed SSID for anxiety/depression and quality of life (MD = −1.47; 95% CI = −2.40 to −0.53; Z = 3.07 (p = 0.002), favouring PBMT group to the control treatment strategies. Despite the inconsistency and diversity in PBM parameters (wavelength, power, light source, spot size, emission mode, energy per point, total energy) and treatment protocols (exposure time, number of sessions, time interval between sessions, treatment duration)—majority of the included studies showed positive PBM results. The high RoB and meta-analytical heterogeneity in the eligible studies warrant the necessity to perform well-designed and robust RCTs after acknowledging the drawbacks of the available scientific literature and addressing our suggested recommendations highlighted in our review.