Brender Leonan-Silva

Temporomandibular disorders (TMDs) are among the most common causes of chronic orofacial pain. Although photobiomodulation therapy (PBMT), traditionally referred to as low-level laser therapy (LLLT), and transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation (TENS) are widely used conservative modalities, their comparative efficacy remains uncertain due to inconsistent evidence. This systematic review compared the efficacy of both therapies and critically appraised the reporting quality and selected methodological characteristics of the included clinical studies. A systematic review was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines, with the protocol registered in PROSPERO. Clinical trials comparing TENS and PBMT were searched in Medline, Web of Science, Scopus, Cochrane, and Embase databases using the descriptors “low-level laser therapy,” “photobiomodulation,” “transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation,” and “temporomandibular joint disorders,” without restrictions on publication year or language. The reporting quality and selected methodological characteristics of the included studies were critically appraised using a CONSORT-based assessment framework. A total of 402 records were identified, of which 14 met the inclusion criteria, comprising 620 patients with joint pain, muscle pain, and/or disc displacement. A greater number of included studies reported numerically larger improvements in pain relief and maximum jaw opening following PBMT than TENS. However, twelve of the fourteen included studies were classified as Level III, indicating limited reporting quality according to the adapted CONSORT-based methodological appraisal framework. Substantial heterogeneity in diagnostic characteristics, treatment protocols, and outcome assessment limited direct comparisons between interventions. Overall, the available evidence suggests that both PBMT and TENS may improve pain and mandibular function in patients with temporomandibular disorders. However, these findings should be interpreted cautiously, as the absence of quantitative synthesis and the substantial clinical and methodological heterogeneity preclude definitive conclusions regarding the comparative efficacy or superiority of either modality.

This systematic review aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of high-power lasers in the removal of esthetic restorations compared with conventional methods. The review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and registered in PROSPERO (registration number: CRD420251055736). A comprehensive electronic search was performed in MEDLINE, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library. Study selection, data extraction, and methodological quality assessment were independently performed by four reviewers using QUIN tool for in vitro studies. A total of 2.384 records were identified, of which 19 in vitro studies conducted on extracted human permanent teeth met the eligibility criteria and were included in the qualitative synthesis. The included studies evaluated different high-power laser systems, predominantly Er: YAG and Er, Cr: YSGG lasers, as well as CO₂ lasers. Five studies were classified as high quality, whereas the remaining fourteen studies were classified as moderate quality. Available laboratory evidence suggests that laser-assisted techniques may represent a potential alternative approach for removing esthetic restorations, with advantages including conservative tissue removal, reduced damage to underlying tooth structures, and intrapulpal temperature increases within acceptable limits. The Er: YAG laser was the most frequently investigated system, with power settings ranging from 1.5 to 5.9 W, showing particularly favorable laboratorial performance in the removal of lithium disilicate restorations, especially in thinner substrates. Within the limitations of the available evidence, high-power lasers appear to be a promising and minimally invasive alternative to conventional methods for the removal of esthetic restorations. However, the predominance of in vitro studies highlights the need for well-designed clinical trials to confirm these findings and support their clinical application.

A prática odontológica está em constante evolução, acompanhando avanços tecnológicos, científicos e pedagógicos que impactam diretamente a formação dos futuros cirurgiões-dentistas. Desde sua primeira edição, o Guia de Instrumentais Odontológicos consolidou-se como uma importante ferramenta de apoio ao aprendizado, auxiliando acadêmicos na organização, aquisição e utilização adequada dos materiais essenciais à prática clínica. Nesta segunda edição, o guia amplia seu conteúdo ao incorporar novas disciplinas da grade curricular, além de apresentar novos materiais, orientações de biossegurança, alternativas de aquisição e indicações específicas para diferentes especialidades odontológicas. Com uma proposta didática, acessível e atualizada, este e-book busca contribuir para a formação acadêmica e profissional dos estudantes de Odontologia, reunindo informações práticas e relevantes para uma atuação clínica segura, consciente e eficiente. Desejamos que este guia continue sendo uma referência de apoio ao aprendizado e um incentivo à busca contínua pela excelência profissional. Boa leitura!