Abstract
Recent reviews and meta-analyses of the literature over the past quarter-century have failed to provide enough evidence to prove or disprove the actual utility of photonic therapy in periodontitis, alone or adjunctive to conventional approaches. This apparent paradox has been explained by the many physical, molecular, biological, anatomical, and technical variables of photonic treatments, which can differ in light-emitting devices (laser or LED), wavelengths, irradiation power and modes, clinical objectives, follow-up times, disease grading, and assessment methods. This multi-faceted, controversial scenario has led practitioners to underestimate the actual potential of photonic therapy in periodontal diseases. In this critical appraisal of the literature, we have briefly summarized the main photonic therapies and instruments used in Periodontology, highlighting their main characteristics and limitations. Then, we have tried to identify and discuss the key methodological issues which can have an impact on the outcome of photonic therapies. Our main goal was to identify the best parameters, settings, and methodologies to perform effective periodontal photonic treatments and to extrapolate some recommendations for clinical use. Should these recommendations find a consensus among periodontologists and be adopted in future clinical studies, they will hopefully contribute to dissipate the present confusion and uncertainty on this complex matter.