Photobiomodulation in the Treatment of Temporomandibular Disorders: A Systematic Review

Published October 15, 2026. Some trials found better short-term pain or jaw-function outcomes with PBM, but results varied across diagnoses, protocols and comparators. The review describes PBM as a potentially useful conservative option, not an established standalone treatment, and could not identify an optimal protocol.

Pereira GS, Costa GV, Silva IR, dos Santos GN, da Silva ML.
Current Oral Health Reports · Publication date: 2026-10-15
Added to site: 2026-10-23
DOI: 10.1007/s40496-026-00441-x

Published October 15, 2026. Added to Neurofeedback.com October 23, 2026 as an overlap-window publication.

Modalities

Photobiomodulation, Low-level laser therapy, Light-emitting diode therapy

Clinical focus

Temporomandibular disorders, Orofacial pain, Mandibular function

Population

Adults with myogenous, arthrogenous, mixed or otherwise clinically defined temporomandibular disorders

Sample

14 randomized controlled trials with 1,001 randomized participants; fewer contributed to final analyses because of attrition

Intervention / method

Five databases were searched for randomized trials published from January 2015 through September 2025. PBM wavelengths ranged from about 630 to 905 nm and regimens ranged from one to 14 applications. Heterogeneity prevented meta-analysis.

Comparator

Sham or placebo PBM, no intervention, standard care, occlusal splints, medication, other conservative treatments or active light protocols

Clinician summary

Fourteen RCTs randomized 1,001 participants. Several trials favored active PBM for selected pain or functional outcomes, while placebo and active-control groups also improved and treatment-specific effects were inconsistent. Comparison-specific GRADE certainty ranged from moderate to very low and was usually low or very low; no pooled effect was calculated.

How to interpret the findings

The review excluded pre-2015 and non-English reports and did not search trial registries or grey literature. Clinical populations, comparators, outcomes, follow-up and PBM dosimetry were highly heterogeneous, some source papers contained inconsistent technical values, and risk-of-bias concerns were common. Only five trials, covering 492 randomized participants, reported adverse-event information in any form. No serious events were reported there, but harm ascertainment was incomplete and nonstandardized.

Equipment and disclosures

Included trials used heterogeneous laser and LED systems from about 630 to 905 nm. Reporting gaps and internally inconsistent dosimetry prevented reliable device or dose comparisons. The review does not support a superior system and makes no BrainMaster attribution.

Supported by the Federal University of Alfenas, CAPES Finance Code 001 and FAPEMIG. The authors declared no competing interests. The review was registered as PROSPERO CRD420251140804. No correction, retraction or expression-of-concern relation appeared in the retained Crossref record; this is a bounded check. AI-assisted source review.

Related evidence

Compare findings from the same clinical area, including mixed results.