Singhania A. et al. - Photobiomodulation and the Stability of Dental Implants: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

A systematic review with meta-analysis published in 2025 evaluated the effect of photobiomodulation on the stability of dental implants. The results are mixed: depending on when the measurement was taken, the advantage alternated between the control group and the treatment group, and no difference was observed at 6 and 12 weeks.

What this study measured

The question: Does photobiomodulation improve the primary and secondary stability of dental implants? The authors followed the PRISMA guidelines and the PICOS criteria for study selection. The risk of bias was assessed using the RoB 2 tool, and analyses were conducted using RevMan software version 5.4. Implant stability was measured in two ways: using an Osstell-type device and through radiographic examinations. Means, standard deviations, and sample sizes were combined using the inverse variance method with a random-effects model. Forest plots were examined at each interval to assess heterogeneity. No PROSPERO registration number is mentioned in the abstract.

Key Findings

The selection of references and comparisons by time interval yield the following table.

• 117 articles identified initially; 62 retained after removing duplicates
• 15 articles selected for qualitative analysis
• 8 articles eligible for quantitative analysis
• At 2, 4, and 8 weeks, the control group achieved better results than the treatment group
• At 3 weeks, implant stability favors the treated group
• At 6 and 12 weeks, there was no difference between the control group and the treatment group

The summary does not provide the total number of participants, effect sizes, or confidence intervals. The authors themselves conclude that the results are mixed and that further research is needed.

How photobiomodulation works for this indication

The mechanism proposed in the literature remains hypothetical and has not been tested in this study. Red and near-infrared light is thought to be absorbed by cytochrome c oxidase, an enzyme in the mitochondrial respiratory chain. This absorption could alter ATP production and the level of oxidative stress in the exposed cells. This would result in a modulation of the local inflammatory response and a possible influence on soft tissue healing and on the bone cells involved in osseointegration. These steps are described in the conditional tense: the review measures a clinical outcome—implant stability—rather than the biological pathways that might explain it.

Limits You Should Be Aware Of

The main limitation is the result itself: it varies depending on when the measurement was taken and is unfavorable to the treatment group in three of the six time intervals studied. Only 8 articles could be statistically combined, which is a small number. The authors note heterogeneity among the studies, which limits the scope of the comparisons. The abstract does not specify the irradiation parameters used in the included studies—including wavelength, dose, or number of sessions—even though these factors determine the outcome. Finally, two different measurement methods are used, which complicates the overall interpretation.

What This Means in Practice

As it stands, this review does not support the routine use of photobiomodulation to improve the stability of dental implants. It urges caution regarding claims that present this benefit as a given. For a patient, the decision rests with the dentist or implant surgeon, who will take into account the bone condition, the surgical protocol, and the follow-up care. The authors call for higher-quality trials and standardized protocols before any firm recommendations are made.

Frequently Asked Questions

Does photobiomodulation improve the integration of a dental implant?

This review of 15 studies does not allow us to draw such a conclusion. The measures of implant stability point in opposite directions depending on the week under consideration, and no difference is observed at 6 and 12 weeks. The authors conclude that further research is needed.

How many studies have been analyzed on this topic?

Of the 117 articles initially identified, 62 remained after duplicates were removed. Fifteen were selected for qualitative analysis, and only 8 were included in the meta-analysis. This small number partly explains the cautious nature of the conclusions.

Is there a validated photobiomodulation protocol for implantology?

The summary of this review does not report any standardized protocols. Radiation parameters vary from one study to another and are not detailed. Any application must be performed by a trained healthcare professional in a clinical setting.

Reference

Singhania A, Borle A, Godbole S, Sathe S. The Effect of Photobiomodulation Therapy on Implant Stability in Patients Receiving Dental Implants: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. BMC Oral Health, 2025. PMID 40604734. View the study on PubMed

This summary is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Photobiomodulation is not a substitute for prescribed treatment. Consult a healthcare professional.