This review aimed to evaluate the efficacy of low-level laser therapy (LLLT) for accelerating tooth movement during orthodontic treatment. An extensive electronic search was conducted by two reviewers. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs concerning the efficacy of LLLT for accelerating tooth movement during orthodontic treatment were searched in CENTRAL, Medline, PubMed, Embase, China Biology Medicine Disc (CBM), China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and Google Scholar. Six RCTs and three quasi-RCTs, involving 211 patients from six countries, were selected from 173 relevant studies. All nine articles were feasible for the systematic review and meta-analysis, five of which were assessed as moderate risk of bias, while the rest were assessed as high risk of bias. The mean difference and the 95 % confidence interval (95 % CI) of accumulative moved distance of teeth were observed among all the researches. The results showed that the LLLT could accelerate orthodontic tooth movement (OTM) in 7 days (mean difference 0.19, 95 % CI [0.02, 0.37], p = 0.03) and 2 months (mean difference 1.08, 95 % CI [0.16, 2.01], p = 0.02). Moreover, a relatively lower energy density (5 and 8 J/cm(2)) was seemingly more effective than 20 and 25 J/cm(2) and even higher ones.

This review aimed to identify the efficacy of low-level laser therapy (LLLT) in the management of orthodontic pain. This systematic review and meta-analysis was carried out in accordance with Cochrane Handbook and the PRISMA statement. An extensive literature search for RCTs, quasi-RCTs, and CCTs was performed through CENTRAL, PubMed, Embase, Medline, CNKI, and CBM up to October 2011. Risk of bias assessment was performed via referring to the Cochrane tool for risk of bias assessment. Meta-analysis was implemented using Review Manager 5.1. As a result, four RCTs, two quasi-RCTs, and two CCTs were selected from 152 relevant studies, including 641 patients from six countries. The meta-analysis demonstrated that 24% risk of incidence of pain was reduced by LLLT (RR = 0.76, 95% CI range 0.63-0.92, P = 0.006). In addition, compared to the control group, LLLT brought forward "the most painful day" (MD = -0.42, 95% CI range -0.74- -0.10, P = 0.009). Furthermore, the LLLT group also implied a trend of earlier end of pain compared with the control group (MD = -1.37, 95% CI range -3.37-0.64, P = 0.18) and the pseudo-laser group (MD = -1.04, 95% CI range -4.22-2.15, P = 0.52). However, because of the methodological shortcomings and risk of bias of included trials, LLLT was proved with limited evidence in delaying pain onset and reducing pain intensity. In the future, larger and better-designed RCTs will be required to provide clearer recommendations.

Introduction: Drug-related problems (DRPs) are not only detrimental to patients' physical health and quality of life but also lead to a serious waste of health care resources. The condition of DRPs might be more severe for patients in primary health care institutions.Objective: This systematic review aims to comprehensively review the characteristics of DRPs for patients in primary health care institutions, which might help find effective strategies to identify, prevent, and intervene with DRPs in the future.Methods: We searched three English databases (Embase, The Cochrane Library, and PubMed) and four Chinese databases (CNKI, CBM, VIP, and Wanfang). Two of the researchers independently conducted literature screening, quality evaluation, and data extraction. Qualitative and quantitative methods were combined to analyze the data.Results: From the 3,368 articles screened, 27 met the inclusion criteria and were included in this review. The median (inter-quartile range, IQR) of the incidences of DRPs was 70.04% (59%), and the median (IQR) of the average number of DRPs per patient was 3.4 (2.8). The most common type of DRPs was “treatment safety.” The causes of DRPs were mainly in the prescribing section, including “drug selection” and “dose selection”, while patients' poor adherence in the use section was also an important cause of DRPs. Risk factors such as the number of medicines, age, and disease condition were positively associated with the occurrence of DRPs. In addition, the medians (IQR) of the rate of accepted interventions, implemented interventions, and solved DRPs were 78.8% (22.3%), 64.15% (16.85%), and 76.99% (26.09%), respectively.Conclusion: This systematic review showed that the condition of DRPs in primary health care institutions was serious. In pharmaceutical practice, the patients with risk factors of DRPs should be monitored more closely. Pharmacists could play important roles in the identification and intervention of DRPs, and more effective intervention strategies need to be established in the future.

Introduction In this study, we will combine the traditional Baduanjin with Yijin Jing and Wuqinxi to create an optimized Baduanjin exercise program with three different forms (vertical, sitting, and horizontal) to adapt to idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) patients in vairous stages of the disease. The purpose of this study is to explore and compare the therapeutic effects of this multi-form Baduanjin, traditional Baduanjin, and resistance training on lung function and limb motor function in IPF patients. The goal of this study is to prove a novel optimal exercise prescription strategy of Baduanjin exercise for improving and protecting lung function in IPF patients. Methods/design A single-blind and randomized controlled trial is used to conduct this study, while the randomization list will be generated using a computerized random number generator and opaque sealed envelopes with group allocation will be prepared. It will be strictly followed to blind the outcome assessors. and until the experiment’s conclusion, participants won’t know which group they are enrolled in. Patients between the ages of 35 and 80 who have stable diseases and have not regularly practiced Baduanjin exercise in the past will be included. They are divvied up into the following five groups at random: (1) The conventional care group (control group, CG), (2) The traditional Baduanjin exercise group (TG), (3) The modified Baduanjin exercise group (IG), (4) The resistance exercise group (RG) (5) The modified Baduanjin exercise combined with resistance exercise group (IRG). Those CG participants only received the usual treatment, while TC, IG, and RG participants exercised 1 h twice a day for 3 months. MRG participants will have a 3-month intervention with 1 h of Modified Baduanjin Exercise and 1 H of Resistance Training for each day. Every week, all groups underwent will supervis one-day training, with the exception of the control group. The Pulmonary Function Testing (PFT), HRCT, and 6MWT are the main outcome variables. The St. George Respiratory Questionnaire and mMRC are used as secondary outcome measures. Discussion This study may produce a new Baduanjin exercise prescription that is user-friendly, simple to execute, more targeted, and adaptable. Because it consists of three forms, including vertical, sitting, and horizontal, it is more adaptable to the various disease stages and actual situations of IPF patients and may compensate for the shortcomings of conventional pulmonary rehabilitation and traditional Baduanjin. Trial registration Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, ChiCTR2200055559. Registered on 12 January 2022.

No abstract