The influence of low-frequency variable magnetic fields in reducing pain experience after dental implant treatment.

Acta of bioengineering and biomechanics · 2015 · Benefit · Low evidence

← Research stream

BenefitLow evidencePaper 2958

Study snapshot

PublicationActa of bioengineering and biomechanics · 2015

Study typerandomized_trial

Reported directionBenefit

Evidence ratingLow

Abstract

UNLABELLED: The paper presents the evaluation of analgesic effect or magnetostimulation and magnetoledtherapy after implantation treatment. The study was conducted on 3 groups (Z applicator, IR applicator and conventional drug therapy) of 10 patients each of whom underwent a single implantation. Magnetostimulation was carried out using Viofor JPS Delux equipment. The patients were exposed to magnetic field for approx. 15 minutes before the treatment and during the visit after 6 hours after the implantation procedure. Pain perception of patients was recorded on the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). RESULTS: the most intense pain was reported in the control group. The least intense pain appeared in the group with Z applicator. Patients using Z and IR applicators took analgesics less frequently and used much weaker analgesics than the control group. Pain perceived in the first group was between 0 and 2, while in the second group - between 2 and 3, and in the control group - between 3 and 5 in VAS scale. Magnetostimulation reduces patient's demand for analgesics after implantation procedures and yielded better effects in reduction of pain in comparison with magnetostimulation with LED therapy.

Machine Enhanced Logic

AI evidence extraction

Structured fields below were generated from the paper’s abstract and metadata to make the evidence easier to inspect. Automated extraction may be incomplete or incorrect; verify important details against the original paper.

Study typerandomized_trial

Effect directionbenefit

PopulationPatients undergoing a single dental implantation

Sample size30

ExposureELF · ~15 minutes before treatment and during a visit 6 hours after implantation

Evidence strengthLowConfidence: 74% · Peer reviewed: yes

Main findings

In this 3-arm study (Z applicator, IR applicator, conventional drug therapy; 10 patients per group), the control group reported the most intense pain and the Z applicator group the least intense pain. Both Z and IR applicator groups used analgesics less frequently and used weaker analgesics than the control group; reported VAS ranges were 0–2 (Z), 2–3 (IR), and 3–5 (control). Magnetostimulation was reported to reduce demand for analgesics and to reduce pain more than magnetostimulation with LED therapy.

Outcomes measured

Pain perception (Visual Analogue Scale, VAS)
Analgesic use (frequency and strength)

Limitations

Small sample size (10 per group)
Exposure parameters (e.g., magnetic field strength, frequency) not reported in abstract
Randomization/blinding and allocation procedures not described in abstract
Short follow-up window described (pre-treatment and 6 hours post-procedure)

View raw extracted JSON

{
  "study_type": "randomized_trial",
  "exposure": {
    "band": "ELF",
    "source": "therapeutic magnetostimulation (Viofor JPS Delux); magnetoledtherapy (magnetostimulation + LED)",
    "frequency_mhz": null,
    "sar_wkg": null,
    "duration": "~15 minutes before treatment and during a visit 6 hours after implantation"
  },
  "population": "Patients undergoing a single dental implantation",
  "sample_size": 30,
  "outcomes": [
    "Pain perception (Visual Analogue Scale, VAS)",
    "Analgesic use (frequency and strength)"
  ],
  "main_findings": "In this 3-arm study (Z applicator, IR applicator, conventional drug therapy; 10 patients per group), the control group reported the most intense pain and the Z applicator group the least intense pain. Both Z and IR applicator groups used analgesics less frequently and used weaker analgesics than the control group; reported VAS ranges were 0–2 (Z), 2–3 (IR), and 3–5 (control). Magnetostimulation was reported to reduce demand for analgesics and to reduce pain more than magnetostimulation with LED therapy.",
  "effect_direction": "benefit",
  "limitations": [
    "Small sample size (10 per group)",
    "Exposure parameters (e.g., magnetic field strength, frequency) not reported in abstract",
    "Randomization/blinding and allocation procedures not described in abstract",
    "Short follow-up window described (pre-treatment and 6 hours post-procedure)"
  ],
  "evidence_strength": "low",
  "confidence": 0.74,
  "peer_reviewed_likely": "yes",
  "keywords": [
    "magnetostimulation",
    "low-frequency magnetic fields",
    "magnetoledtherapy",
    "dental implant",
    "pain",
    "VAS",
    "analgesic use"
  ],
  "suggested_hubs": []
}

AI can be wrong. Always verify against the paper.

AI-extracted fields are generated from the abstract and metadata and may be incomplete or incorrect. This material is for informational purposes and is not medical advice.

Identifiers and source

DOI: Not supplied
PubMed: 26898264

Read the original paper →

Related papers

← Back to the Research Library