This systematic review presents qualitative comparisons between LED and LASER photobiomodulation in cutaneous wound healing, limited by the substantial heterogeneity of experimental parameters. Chronic wounds represent a major clinical challenge due to prolonged healing times, high risk of infection, and increased healthcare costs. Photobiomodulation (PBM) using low‐level laser therapy (LLLT) and light‐emitting diode (LED) devices has emerged as a promising therapeutic strategy for tissue repair. However, the equivalence of the biological and therapeutic effects of these light sources remains debated. The aim of this review is to clarify these effects by systematically comparing LLLT and LED sources on cutaneous wound healing. Comprehensive searches were conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, Scopus, and Embase using terms related to wound healing, LLLT, and LED. We included exclusively controlled in vivo or in vitro studies that directly compared the effects of LLLT and LED on cutaneous wound healing or related biological processes. Of 2020 identified studies, 16 met the inclusion criteria. Both LED and laser promote relevant cellular effects, contributing to the tissue repair process. Findings indicate that both devices promote similar photobiomodulatory effects by activating key cellular and molecular mechanisms essential for wound repair. This review presents predominantly qualitative comparisons between LED and LASER in wound healing, limited by the substantial heterogeneity of experimental parameters. Nevertheless, the available evidence indicates that, although LLLT shows quantitatively superior effects on parameters such as blood vessel density and caliber and type I collagen deposition, both modalities demonstrate similar preclinical effects. (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews registration number: CRD420251086145).

Chronic lower-limb wounds represent a major clinical and socioeconomic burden due to delayed healing and high recurrence rates. Light-emitting diode (LED) photobiomodulation has been proposed as a noninvasive and low-cost adjunctive therapy; however, clinical evidence remains inconsistent. This systematic review aimed to synthesize evidence from randomized clinical trials investigating the efficacy of LED photobiomodulation for chronic lower-limb wound healing and to identify irradiation parameters associated with improved outcomes. A comprehensive search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Embase up to May 2026. Six randomized clinical trials met the inclusion criteria. Wavelengths ranged from 620 to 950 nm, and energy densities varied between 2.4 and 126 J/cm². The findings suggest that LED photobiomodulation may promote wound area reduction, improve wound bed quality, and increase microcirculation, particularly in diabetic foot ulcers. However, one study using a high energy density (126 J/cm²) did not demonstrate beneficial effects, suggesting a possible dose-dependent response. The overall certainty of the evidence, assessed using the GRADE approach, was classified as very low due to inconsistency and indirectness among the included studies. Although LED photobiomodulation appears to be safe and demonstrates therapeutic potential, substantial heterogeneity in irradiation parameters, small sample sizes, and methodological limitations preclude definitive conclusions regarding its clinical efficacy. Well-designed randomized controlled trials with standardized protocols and dose–response investigations are needed to establish optimal therapeutic parameters and confirm clinical efficacy.

Diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) result in tissue damage or impairment of deeper structures that affect quality of life. The impacts are numerous, and even after a long treatment period, 65% of patients experience recurrence. Among the interventions used to accelerate the healing process of DFUs, photobiomodulation therapy (PBMT) is a painless, noninvasive, and low-cost treatment. To achieve effective therapeutic results optimal PBMT parameters are necessary. The positive effect of PBMT on diabetic cells may be dependent on fluence (J/cm²) and wavelength (nm). This double-blind, randomized clinical trial will be conducted at the University Clinic of Physical Therapy. One hundred patients will be randomly placed in 4 groups. A Laserpulse Ibramed (Helium-Neon, HeNe, 660 nm) with 20 W power will be used (continuous mode), with doses stipulated for each treatment group (GL1, 4 J/cm²; GL2, 8 J/cm²; GL3, 12 J/cm²) and Endophoton KLD GaAs 904 nm (ST, 10 J/cm²) for 2 nonconsecutive days per week for 10 weeks, for a total of 20 sessions. The primary outcomes will be ulcer healing rate and University of Texas classification scores. Patients’ DFUs will be assessed on the 1st day, 5 weeks, and 10 weeks of treatment then 1 month after the end of treatment. This study may aid effective clinical decision-making for the management of DFUs.