SynthesisInternational journal of environmental research and public health2025
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Photobiomodulation After Third Molar Extraction for Pain Control.
Synthesis in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- An italian multicenter triple-blind randomized controlled trial on photobiomodulation after third molar extraction (BIOSTOTT). A study of italian society for laser in dentistry (SILO).Medicina oral, patologia oral y cirugia bucal · 2026Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aims to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of photobiomodulation applied after third molar extraction. MATERIALS AND
methodsTo evaluate cost-effectiveness, 15 studies were selected for a systematic review and 8 studies for a meta-analysis to determine the effectiveness of photobiomodulation after surgery. In the present study, as a measure of effectiveness, the pain scale (visual analog scale) was used. The laser value was extracted from the Unified Terminology of Supplementary Health (Brazilian Health System) according to the laser application protocol most common among the clinical trials selected for the meta-analysis. As for drugs, they were determined from those most used among the works included in the meta-analysis and within the protocols established by the Brazilian Ministry of Health.
resultsThe results of the overall analysis show a significant reduction in pain on the second day after surgery for the experimental group compared to the control (MD, -1.15; 95% CI, -1.73, -0.57). The control group has a lower cost and lower effectiveness, while laser treatment has a higher cost and higher effectiveness. Faced with this situation, the professional must clinically assess whether the cost of USD 34.62 for controlled pain intensity using the laser is worth the extra health benefit.
conclusionsRegarding the cost-effectiveness assessment, the control group has a lower cost and lower effectiveness, while laser treatment has a higher cost and higher effectiveness The decision of which treatment to choose must consider whether the cost of the therapeutic alternative outweighs the clinical gain caused by the treatment. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: One of the most executed procedures in dentistry is the extraction of third molars. To reduce the negative post-surgical effects, anti-inflammatory drugs are prescribed, which can generate unwanted effects. Photobiomodulation is a technique to modulate inflammation, accelerate tissue repair, and reduce pain and discomfort in different clinical situations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.