Commentary: The immediate pain relief of low-level laser therapy for burning mouth syndrome: a retrospective study of 94 cases DOI Creative Commons
Takayuki Suga, Akira Toyofuku

Frontiers in Oral Health, Journal Year: 2025, Volume and Issue: 6

Published: Feb. 11, 2025

We read with interest the article by Mu et al., entitled "The immediate pain relief of lowlevel laser therapy for burning mouth syndrome: a retrospective study 94 cases." (1) The authors presented data suggesting favorable analgesic effect low-level (LLLT) in patients syndrome (BMS). While we commend their effort to explore noninvasive treatment modalities, would like raise several points concern that warrant careful consideration before interpreting results as definitive evidence LLLT's efficacy.We fully acknowledge certain advantages LLLT, including its nature, minimal side effects, and ease application. These features make it an attractive option who are otherwise reluctant undergo more invasive procedures or longterm pharmacotherapy. However, authors' design without placebo control group makes difficult rule out possibility effect. Although al. discussed limitations study, justifications do not exclude likelihood at least part reported could arise from patient expectation other nonspecific factors. In this regard, attempt equate short pre-post assessment interval proper remains inadequate definitively confirm genuine physiological benefit LLLT.As primarily focused on relief, did address sustainability This is reminiscent older investigations into BMS, where nerve blocks via infiltrative anesthesia showed temporary benefits but failed provide conclusive long-term outcomes. (2, 3) Despite subset exhibit clinically meaningful improvements-even if partly influenced placebo-the lack leaves unanswered questions about whether LLLT confers sustained analgesia BMS. addition, BMS recognized complex condition often involving psychosomatic neuropathic components, short-term does necessarily translate significant remission.It well recognized-both our own observation many studies-that clonazepam antidepressants commonly used pharmacological agents settings worldwide. (4) China, availability these medications predominantly restricted psychiatric practices, creating notable limitation drug accessibility patients. Moreover, pharmacologic treatments provided (e.g., mecobalamin, basic fibroblast growth factor, oryzanol, etc.) consistent standard elsewhere. Consequently, claiming participants had "standardized" pharmacotherapy prior receiving may be overstatement. pharmaceutical therapies (such clonazepam) cases raises question actually underwent what considered medical care. If, fact, majority receive well-recognized treatments, concluding succeeds typical fails misleading.patients and, indeed, comparable placebo. (5) Nonetheless, overall conclusion appears overstated nearterm reduction "proves" effectiveness. Given highly psychological factors, robust group, combined absence detailed follow-up, inevitably doubts truly surpasses clinical practice. complexity overlapping neuropathic, psychological, systemic variables, demands cautious interpretation any single measure relief.In light concerns outlined above, urge rigorous designs, prospective randomized controlled trials adequate controls, standardized interventions, well-defined follow-up periods. believe such conclusively determine extent which beyond Additionally, interplay between variables peripheral mechanisms underscores importance exploring comprehensive, multidisciplinary approaches.While hold promise broader regimen-particularly countries dentists frequently treat legally permitted prescribe antiepileptic cannot prefer use pharmacotherapy-the current evidence, insufficiently strong claims routine adoption.We suggest future investigations, accordance healthcare context each country, pay closer attention employ placebo-controlled methods, incorporate extended intervals ascertain positive outcomes persist over time. Only then can field move establishing definitive, evidence-based consensus BMS.Thank you opportunity comment intriguing work. further discussion additional studies help refine understanding how best manage challenging condition.

Language: Английский

Commentary: The immediate pain relief of low-level laser therapy for burning mouth syndrome: a retrospective study of 94 cases DOI Creative Commons
Takayuki Suga, Akira Toyofuku

Frontiers in Oral Health, Journal Year: 2025, Volume and Issue: 6

Published: Feb. 11, 2025

We read with interest the article by Mu et al., entitled "The immediate pain relief of lowlevel laser therapy for burning mouth syndrome: a retrospective study 94 cases." (1) The authors presented data suggesting favorable analgesic effect low-level (LLLT) in patients syndrome (BMS). While we commend their effort to explore noninvasive treatment modalities, would like raise several points concern that warrant careful consideration before interpreting results as definitive evidence LLLT's efficacy.We fully acknowledge certain advantages LLLT, including its nature, minimal side effects, and ease application. These features make it an attractive option who are otherwise reluctant undergo more invasive procedures or longterm pharmacotherapy. However, authors' design without placebo control group makes difficult rule out possibility effect. Although al. discussed limitations study, justifications do not exclude likelihood at least part reported could arise from patient expectation other nonspecific factors. In this regard, attempt equate short pre-post assessment interval proper remains inadequate definitively confirm genuine physiological benefit LLLT.As primarily focused on relief, did address sustainability This is reminiscent older investigations into BMS, where nerve blocks via infiltrative anesthesia showed temporary benefits but failed provide conclusive long-term outcomes. (2, 3) Despite subset exhibit clinically meaningful improvements-even if partly influenced placebo-the lack leaves unanswered questions about whether LLLT confers sustained analgesia BMS. addition, BMS recognized complex condition often involving psychosomatic neuropathic components, short-term does necessarily translate significant remission.It well recognized-both our own observation many studies-that clonazepam antidepressants commonly used pharmacological agents settings worldwide. (4) China, availability these medications predominantly restricted psychiatric practices, creating notable limitation drug accessibility patients. Moreover, pharmacologic treatments provided (e.g., mecobalamin, basic fibroblast growth factor, oryzanol, etc.) consistent standard elsewhere. Consequently, claiming participants had "standardized" pharmacotherapy prior receiving may be overstatement. pharmaceutical therapies (such clonazepam) cases raises question actually underwent what considered medical care. If, fact, majority receive well-recognized treatments, concluding succeeds typical fails misleading.patients and, indeed, comparable placebo. (5) Nonetheless, overall conclusion appears overstated nearterm reduction "proves" effectiveness. Given highly psychological factors, robust group, combined absence detailed follow-up, inevitably doubts truly surpasses clinical practice. complexity overlapping neuropathic, psychological, systemic variables, demands cautious interpretation any single measure relief.In light concerns outlined above, urge rigorous designs, prospective randomized controlled trials adequate controls, standardized interventions, well-defined follow-up periods. believe such conclusively determine extent which beyond Additionally, interplay between variables peripheral mechanisms underscores importance exploring comprehensive, multidisciplinary approaches.While hold promise broader regimen-particularly countries dentists frequently treat legally permitted prescribe antiepileptic cannot prefer use pharmacotherapy-the current evidence, insufficiently strong claims routine adoption.We suggest future investigations, accordance healthcare context each country, pay closer attention employ placebo-controlled methods, incorporate extended intervals ascertain positive outcomes persist over time. Only then can field move establishing definitive, evidence-based consensus BMS.Thank you opportunity comment intriguing work. further discussion additional studies help refine understanding how best manage challenging condition.

Language: Английский

Citations

0