## 4 Discussion
Based on the abovementioned findings in the literature, it was suggested that the combination of a red laser, \"660 nm\", and new wavelength, \"445 nm\", with near infrared laser, \"970 nm\", might have a better impact on controlling pain by taking advantage of the different penetration capacities of these wavelengths. A wide range of PBM parameters were observed in the literature. The power range was from 0.01 W to 1.8 W. The energy per point range was from 3 J/cm\({}^{2}\) to 480 J/cm\({}^{2}\). The irradiation time per point range was from 40 s to 120 s [36]. In the literature, it was reported that studies with power ranges between 10 mW and 200 mW showed effectiveness in pain control [23]. In addition, it was observed in one study that a reduction in pain on the second postoperative day was achieved by using a power of 0.5 W [23; 29]. Based on these findings, we decided to use an average power of 200 mW for the intraoral PBM application and 550 mW for extraoral PBM application. The intraoral application was the most studied application modality, followed by the combined protocols (intraoral and extraoral). The least studied application modality was the extraoral PBM application [24]. In a systematic review, it was noted that studies with combined applications showed better results compared to studies with only extraoral or intraoral applications [36]. Regarding the protocol's timing and the number of sessions, immediate postoperative single-session PBM was the most tested protocol. In a systematic review, it was found that only 1 study out of 17 included studies using both preoperative and postoperative PBM protocols [19; 22], and only 2 studies used repeated sessions [38; 39]. In a recent randomized clinical trial, the single-session and repeated-session protocols were compared. It was found that there was no difference between the two protocols, and the single-session protocol was recommended [40]. This pilot study aimed mainly to evaluate the effectiveness of this PBM protocol and recognize the improvement points related to this study's design and methodology that could be considered in future randomized clinical trials. Based on this experience, the observed limitations and considerations that should be acknowledged for a better interpretation of the study results and consideration in future studies were as follows: (1) This study was a single-center study, and a multicentric study with a larger sample size is needed to obtain concrete results. (2) This study was a controlled study, and adding a placebo group would give more concrete results due to eliminating the possible risk of bias that may occur. (3) Ensuring equality in the difficulty of surgical extraction between the two groups was only achieved by determining a time limit for the intervention and the standardization of the surgical intervention procedures by the same operator. (4) Only the statuses of other postoperative complications, including trismus and edema, were registered, and all the patients in both groups (TG and CT) experienced trismus and edema. Measuring the level of edema and mouth opening would be helpful in a future study to understand if this PBM protocol has an impact on them. (5) Some concerns should be considered during the interpretation of the obtained results related to the patient's daily activity questionnaire because it is a questionnaire based on previous experience and has not been subjected to a validation process.