Table 3 Outcomes of included studies

Abohabib, 2018 [10]

The overall success rate of the OMI was 78.5% for L and C groups. The overall failed were three in each group, mainly observed within the first 6 weeks. However, from 3 to 10 weeks, the L group showed significantly increased mean RFA compared to C group.

LLT cannot be recommended as a clinically useful adjunct to promoting OMI stability during canine retraction.

Ekizer, 2016 [14]

OMI stability was significantly increased in the L group after 2 and 3 months. There were no significant differences in the interleukin-1β levels between the groups.

LLLT had a positive effect on OMI stability.

Flieger, 2019

L group showed higher secondary stability (lower mean PTV) in comparison with C group after 3, 30, and 60 days. There was no significant difference in the experience of pain between the groups.

LLLT increased secondary OMI stability.

Marañón-Vásquez, 2019 [6]

PBM groups presented lower loss of stability. DL groups presented lower loss of stability, when the effective period of loading was assessed, independently of the application of PBM. All groups showed displacement of the OMI without significant differences.

DL potentiated the effect of PBM, decreasing the loss of stability.

Matys, 2020 [16]

L group showed higher secondary stability (lower mean PTV) on 30 and 60 days after starting treatment. There was no significant difference in the experience of pain between the groups.

LLLT increased secondary OMI stability.

Osman, 2017 [15]

LLLT improved the stability of OMI, reducing PVT, but the results were not statistically significant. LLLT reduced the gingival index values around OMI, whereas the C group experienced moderate inflammation after 2 months of placement.

LLLT can be suggested as a clinical adjuvant for improving clinical success with OMI.