Evidence Hub

Long-term efficacy of photobiomodulation in burning mouth syndrome: a secondary analysis of a randomized controlled trial

Cheng-Hui Lu, Xin-Yu Zhang, Xin-Xiang Jiang, Mengyu Jiang, Xin Li, Qing Du, Guo-Yao Tang

E -journal of dentistry, 2025

93 participants · 3 citations

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

This secondary analysis investigated the long-term efficacy of photobiomodulation (PBM) in managing pain symptoms associated with burning mouth syndrome (BMS) and explored proposed factors contributing to pain recurrence at 12-month follow-up.

METHODS

A secondary analysis of a randomized clinical trial categorized BMS patients into responders (≥ 23% VAS reduction) and non-responders (< 23% reduction). Patients were divided into four groups: PBM + oral cryotherapy (OCT, n = 24), PBM (n = 25), OCT (n = 24), and drug therapy (DT, n = 20). Pain intensity was assessed using the visual analog scale (VAS). Binary logistic regression identified clinically significant recurrence risk factors, controlling for potential confounders. Statistical significance was defined as p < 0.05.

RESULTS

Among 93 BMS patients, 68 (73.1%) were responders, of whom 37 (54.4%) experienced pain recurrence within 2.55-5.33 months post-treatment. The recurrence group had relatively higher pain intensity, poorer oral health-related quality of life, and more severe anxiety and depressive symptoms compared to non-recurrence patients (p < 0.05). PBM + OCT combination therapy showed a lower recurrence rate (45.0%, 9/20) and longer recurrence-free duration (5.33 ± 2.96 months), while PBM alone demonstrated comparable efficacy (22.2% complete remission; 33.3% recurrence). Xerostomia (OR = 5.49, p = 0.020) and mental stress (OR = 12.62, p = 0.024) were potentially associated with increased recurrence…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a secondary / pooled analysis, done in people. Its evidence level is 3 of 5 (Moderate · trial / cohort / secondary analysis). Trials without a large randomized design, cohorts and secondary analyses give moderate evidence. Reported size: 93 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free