Same question across reviews · CL0190
intervention :: Laser/photodynamic -> Other outcome
ProposalThis cluster groups questions by review type, intervention category and outcome domain. It is a proposal pending human validation, so questions in it may differ in population, comparator or timing.
Reviews
21
Questions
162
current versions
GRADE rated
36
Review overlap (CCA)
0.000
over all included studies of these reviews, not this question only
| Question | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Adjunctive antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) applied after subgingival instrumentation (SI) vs Subgingival instrumentation (SI) alone (hand or power-driven, or both), or SI plus placebo/sham aPDT Pocket closure · Adults (> 18 years) with a clinical diagnosis of periodontitis, receiving active (non-surgical anti-infective) treatment · 3 months (change from baseline) Adjunctive antimicrobial photodynamic therapy for treating periodontal and peri‐implant diseases (2024) · Cochrane | Three studies evaluated the proportion of closed pockets three months after treatment (Al-Zahrani 2011; Courval 2020; Rodrigues 2023); studies used different criteria to measure this outcome. All studies reported an… | 3 studies | Ungraded |
Adjunctive antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) applied after subgingival instrumentation (SI) vs Subgingival instrumentation (SI) alone (hand or power-driven, or both), or SI plus placebo/sham aPDT Patient satisfaction · Adults (> 18 years) with a clinical diagnosis of periodontitis, receiving active (non-surgical anti-infective) treatment Adjunctive antimicrobial photodynamic therapy for treating periodontal and peri‐implant diseases (2024) · Cochrane | No studies reported data for this outcome. | NR | No studies |
Adjunctive antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) applied after subgingival instrumentation (SI) vs Subgingival instrumentation (SI) alone (hand or power-driven, or both), or SI plus placebo/sham aPDT Change in probing pocket depth (PPD) · Adults (> 18 years) with a clinical diagnosis of periodontitis, receiving active (non-surgical anti-infective) treatment · 3 months (change from baseline) Adjunctive antimicrobial photodynamic therapy for treating periodontal and peri‐implant diseases (2024) · Cochrane | MD 0.44 [0.29, 0.59] | 35 studies · 873 participants | Ungraded |
Adjunctive antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) applied after subgingival instrumentation (SI) vs Subgingival instrumentation (SI) alone (hand or power-driven, or both), or SI plus placebo/sham aPDT Change in clinical attachment level (CAL) · Adults (> 18 years) with a clinical diagnosis of periodontitis, receiving active (non-surgical anti-infective) treatment · 3 months (change from baseline) Adjunctive antimicrobial photodynamic therapy for treating periodontal and peri‐implant diseases (2024) · Cochrane | MD 0.36 [0.24, 0.48] | 34 studies · 875 participants | Ungraded |
Adjunctive antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) applied after subgingival instrumentation (SI) vs Subgingival instrumentation (SI) alone (hand or power-driven, or both), or SI plus placebo/sham aPDT Change in clinical attachment level (CAL) · Adults (> 18 years) with recurrent periodontitis, receiving supportive (maintenance) periodontal care · 6 months (change from baseline) Adjunctive antimicrobial photodynamic therapy for treating periodontal and peri‐implant diseases (2024) · Cochrane | MD 0.07 [-0.26, 0.40] | 2 studies · 85 participants | Very low |
Er:YAG laser irradiation of sound enamel before acid challenge vs No anticaries intervention (untreated enamel) Demineralised lesion depth · Human tooth enamel specimens, sound/intact (in vitro) · After cariogenic acid challenge / pH cycling Effect of Er:YAG Laser Irradiation on Preventing Enamel Caries: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. (2024) | SMD -0.55 [-0.97, -0.12] | 3 studies · 252 participants | Ungraded |
Adjunctive antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) applied after subgingival instrumentation (SI) vs Subgingival instrumentation (SI) alone (hand or power-driven, or both), or SI plus placebo/sham aPDT Change in probing pocket depth (PPD) · Adults (> 18 years) with a clinical diagnosis of periodontitis, receiving active (non-surgical anti-infective) treatment · 6 months (change from baseline) Adjunctive antimicrobial photodynamic therapy for treating periodontal and peri‐implant diseases (2024) · Cochrane | MD 0.52 [0.31, 0.74] | 15 studies · 452 participants | Very low |
Adjunctive antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) applied after submucosal instrumentation (SI) vs Submucosal instrumentation (SI) alone, or SI plus placebo/sham aPDT Outcome NR · Adults (> 18 years) with peri-implant mucositis, receiving supportive treatment Adjunctive antimicrobial photodynamic therapy for treating periodontal and peri‐implant diseases (2024) · Cochrane | Planned comparison; no studies met the inclusion criteria. The review found only one study of peri-implant disease (peri-implant mucositis, active treatment) and no studies including people with peri-implantitis… | NR | No studies |
Adjunctive antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) applied after submucosal instrumentation (SI) vs Submucosal instrumentation (SI) alone, or SI plus placebo/sham aPDT Outcome NR · Adults (> 18 years) with peri-implantitis, receiving active treatment Adjunctive antimicrobial photodynamic therapy for treating periodontal and peri‐implant diseases (2024) · Cochrane | Planned comparison; no studies met the inclusion criteria. The review found only one study of peri-implant disease (peri-implant mucositis, active treatment) and no studies including people with peri-implantitis… | NR | No studies |
Adjunctive antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) applied after subgingival instrumentation (SI) vs Subgingival instrumentation (SI) alone (hand or power-driven, or both), or SI plus placebo/sham aPDT Pocket closure · Adults (> 18 years) with a clinical diagnosis of periodontitis, receiving active (non-surgical anti-infective) treatment · 6 months (change from baseline) Adjunctive antimicrobial photodynamic therapy for treating periodontal and peri‐implant diseases (2024) · Cochrane | No studies measured this outcome at 6 months (SoF row labeled 'Change in pocket depth from baseline to 6 months after initial treatment'). | NR | No studies |
Adjunctive antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) applied after submucosal instrumentation (SI) vs Submucosal instrumentation (SI) alone, or SI plus placebo/sham aPDT Change in probing depth (PD/PPD) · Adults (> 18 years) with peri-implant mucositis, receiving active treatment · 3 months (change from baseline) Adjunctive antimicrobial photodynamic therapy for treating periodontal and peri‐implant diseases (2024) · Cochrane | MD -0.10 [-0.57, 0.37] | 1 study · 38 participants | Ungraded |
Adjunctive antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) applied after submucosal instrumentation (SI) vs Submucosal instrumentation (SI) alone, or SI plus placebo/sham aPDT Outcome NR · Adults (> 18 years) with peri-implantitis, receiving supportive treatment Adjunctive antimicrobial photodynamic therapy for treating periodontal and peri‐implant diseases (2024) · Cochrane | Planned comparison; no studies met the inclusion criteria. The review found only one study of peri-implant disease (peri-implant mucositis, active treatment) and no studies including people with peri-implantitis… | NR | No studies |
Adjunctive antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) applied after submucosal instrumentation (SI) vs Submucosal instrumentation (SI) alone, or SI plus placebo/sham aPDT Patient satisfaction · Adults (> 18 years) with peri-implant mucositis, receiving active treatment Adjunctive antimicrobial photodynamic therapy for treating periodontal and peri‐implant diseases (2024) · Cochrane | Only one study reported evidence for adjunctive aPDT in people with peri-implant disease (Al Rifaiy 2022). Data were only available for two outcomes (PPD and BOP), both reported only at three months. No studies… | NR | No studies |
Adjunctive antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) applied after subgingival instrumentation (SI) vs Subgingival instrumentation (SI) alone (hand or power-driven, or both), or SI plus placebo/sham aPDT Pocket closure · Adults (> 18 years) with recurrent periodontitis, receiving supportive (maintenance) periodontal care · 3 months (change from baseline) Adjunctive antimicrobial photodynamic therapy for treating periodontal and peri‐implant diseases (2024) · Cochrane | Three studies evaluated the proportion of closed pockets three months after treatment (Campos 2013; Grzech-Lesniak 2019; Ruhling 2010); studies used different criteria to measure this outcome. All studies reported an… | 3 studies | Ungraded |
Adjunctive antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) applied after subgingival instrumentation (SI) vs Subgingival instrumentation (SI) alone (hand or power-driven, or both), or SI plus placebo/sham aPDT Change in probing pocket depth (PPD) · Adults (> 18 years) with recurrent periodontitis, receiving supportive (maintenance) periodontal care · 3 months (change from baseline) Adjunctive antimicrobial photodynamic therapy for treating periodontal and peri‐implant diseases (2024) · Cochrane | MD 0.44 [-0.20, 1.08] | 6 studies · 244 participants | Ungraded |
Adjunctive antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) applied after submucosal instrumentation (SI) vs Submucosal instrumentation (SI) alone, or SI plus placebo/sham aPDT Pocket closure · Adults (> 18 years) with peri-implant mucositis, receiving active treatment Adjunctive antimicrobial photodynamic therapy for treating periodontal and peri‐implant diseases (2024) · Cochrane | Only one study reported evidence for adjunctive aPDT in people with peri-implant disease (Al Rifaiy 2022). Data were only available for two outcomes (PPD and BOP), both reported only at three months. No studies… | NR | No studies |
Adjunctive antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) applied after subgingival instrumentation (SI) vs Subgingival instrumentation (SI) alone (hand or power-driven, or both), or SI plus placebo/sham aPDT Change in probing pocket depth (PPD) · Adults (> 18 years) with recurrent periodontitis, receiving supportive (maintenance) periodontal care · 6 months (change from baseline) Adjunctive antimicrobial photodynamic therapy for treating periodontal and peri‐implant diseases (2024) · Cochrane | MD -0.04 [-0.19, 0.10] | 3 studies · 125 participants | Very low |
Adjunctive antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) applied after subgingival instrumentation (SI) vs Subgingival instrumentation (SI) alone (hand or power-driven, or both), or SI plus placebo/sham aPDT Patient satisfaction · Adults (> 18 years) with recurrent periodontitis, receiving supportive (maintenance) periodontal care Adjunctive antimicrobial photodynamic therapy for treating periodontal and peri‐implant diseases (2024) · Cochrane | No studies reported data for this outcome. | NR | No studies |
Adjunctive antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) applied after subgingival instrumentation (SI) vs Subgingival instrumentation (SI) alone (hand or power-driven, or both), or SI plus placebo/sham aPDT Change in clinical attachment level (CAL) · Adults (> 18 years) with a clinical diagnosis of periodontitis, receiving active (non-surgical anti-infective) treatment · 6 months (change from baseline) Adjunctive antimicrobial photodynamic therapy for treating periodontal and peri‐implant diseases (2024) · Cochrane | MD 0.44 [0.24, 0.64] | 13 studies · 414 participants | Very low |
Adjunctive antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) applied after subgingival instrumentation (SI) vs Subgingival instrumentation (SI) alone (hand or power-driven, or both), or SI plus placebo/sham aPDT Change in clinical attachment level (CAL) · Adults (> 18 years) with recurrent periodontitis, receiving supportive (maintenance) periodontal care · 3 months (change from baseline) Adjunctive antimicrobial photodynamic therapy for treating periodontal and peri‐implant diseases (2024) · Cochrane | MD 0.07 [-0.21, 0.36] | 5 studies · 204 participants | Ungraded |
Er:YAG laser irradiation of sound enamel before acid challenge vs No anticaries intervention (untreated enamel) Enamel mineral loss · Human tooth enamel specimens, sound/intact (in vitro) · After cariogenic acid challenge / pH cycling Effect of Er:YAG Laser Irradiation on Preventing Enamel Caries: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. (2024) | SMD -2.09 [-3.29, -0.88] | 4 studies | Ungraded |
Adjunctive antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) applied after submucosal instrumentation (SI) vs Submucosal instrumentation (SI) alone, or SI plus placebo/sham aPDT Change in clinical attachment level (CAL) · Adults (> 18 years) with peri-implant mucositis, receiving active treatment Adjunctive antimicrobial photodynamic therapy for treating periodontal and peri‐implant diseases (2024) · Cochrane | Only one study reported evidence for adjunctive aPDT in people with peri-implant disease (Al Rifaiy 2022). Data were only available for two outcomes (PPD and BOP), both reported only at three months. No studies… | NR | No studies |
Adjunctive antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) applied after subgingival instrumentation (SI) vs Subgingival instrumentation (SI) alone (hand or power-driven, or both), or SI plus placebo/sham aPDT Pocket closure · Adults (> 18 years) with recurrent periodontitis, receiving supportive (maintenance) periodontal care · 6 months (change from baseline) Adjunctive antimicrobial photodynamic therapy for treating periodontal and peri‐implant diseases (2024) · Cochrane | No studies measured this outcome at 6 months (SoF row labeled 'Change in pocket depth from baseline to 6 months after treatment'); no studies reported these data at six months after treatment. | NR | No studies |
Er:YAG laser irradiation of sound enamel before acid challenge vs No anticaries intervention (untreated enamel) Calcium ions released in acidic solution · Human tooth enamel specimens, sound/intact (in vitro) · After acid immersion (acid dissolution) Effect of Er:YAG Laser Irradiation on Preventing Enamel Caries: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. (2024) | SMD -0.40 [-0.96, 0.15] | 6 studies · 292 participants | Ungraded |
Low level laser therapy (LLLT) vs Conventional orthodontic appliance treatment Rate of orthodontic tooth movement during space closure stage (maxillary arch), mm/month · Adolescents and adults with malocclusion undergoing fixed orthodontic appliance treatment · Space closure stage Non‐surgical adjunctive interventions for accelerating tooth movement in patients undergoing orthodontic… (2023) · Cochrane | MD 0.18 [0.10, 0.26] | 1 study · 45 participants | Very low |
Low level laser therapy (LLLT) vs Conventional orthodontic appliance treatment Total number of orthodontic appliance adjustment appointments during alignment stage · Adolescents and adults with malocclusion undergoing fixed orthodontic appliance treatment · Alignment stage Non‐surgical adjunctive interventions for accelerating tooth movement in patients undergoing orthodontic… (2023) · Cochrane | MD -2.25 [-2.52, -1.97] | 2 studies · 125 participants | Very low |
Low level laser therapy (LLLT) vs Conventional orthodontic appliance treatment Patient perception of pain and discomfort (VAS 0 to 100 mm) · Adolescents and adults with malocclusion undergoing fixed orthodontic appliance treatment · Space closure / first visit Non‐surgical adjunctive interventions for accelerating tooth movement in patients undergoing orthodontic… (2023) · Cochrane | MD -0.4 [-1.87, 1.07] | 1 study · 37 participants | Very low |
Low level laser therapy (LLLT) vs Conventional orthodontic appliance treatment Duration of orthodontic treatment during alignment stage · Adolescents and adults with malocclusion undergoing fixed orthodontic appliance treatment · Alignment stage Non‐surgical adjunctive interventions for accelerating tooth movement in patients undergoing orthodontic… (2023) · Cochrane | MD -48.87 [-56.48, -41.26] | 3 studies · 92 participants | Very low |
Low level laser therapy (LLLT) vs Conventional orthodontic appliance treatment Patient-reported need for analgesics · Adolescents and adults with malocclusion undergoing fixed orthodontic appliance treatment Non‐surgical adjunctive interventions for accelerating tooth movement in patients undergoing orthodontic… (2023) · Cochrane | Patient-reported need for analgesics | Not reported | NR | No studies |
Low level laser therapy (LLLT) vs Conventional orthodontic appliance treatment Total number of orthodontic appliance adjustment visits during overall treatment · Adolescents and adults with malocclusion undergoing fixed orthodontic appliance treatment Non‐surgical adjunctive interventions for accelerating tooth movement in patients undergoing orthodontic… (2023) · Cochrane | No study reported on the influence of LLLT on the total number of orthodontic appliance adjustment visits to complete a course of treatment. | NR | No studies |
Low level laser therapy (LLLT) vs Conventional orthodontic appliance treatment Duration of total overall orthodontic treatment · Adolescents and adults with malocclusion undergoing fixed orthodontic appliance treatment Non‐surgical adjunctive interventions for accelerating tooth movement in patients undergoing orthodontic… (2023) · Cochrane | No study reported on the influence of LLLT on the total overall orthodontic treatment duration. | NR | No studies |
Low level laser therapy (LLLT) vs Conventional orthodontic appliance treatment Rate of orthodontic tooth movement during alignment stage (percentage reduction in LII), first month · Adolescents and adults with malocclusion undergoing fixed orthodontic appliance treatment · First month of alignment (also second month) Non‐surgical adjunctive interventions for accelerating tooth movement in patients undergoing orthodontic… (2023) · Cochrane | MD 1.63 [-2.60, 5.86] | 2 studies · 56 participants | Very low |
Low level laser therapy (LLLT) vs Conventional orthodontic appliance treatment Rate of maxillary molar intrusion for correction of anterior open bite · Adolescents and adults with malocclusion undergoing fixed orthodontic appliance treatment · 3 and 6 months Non‐surgical adjunctive interventions for accelerating tooth movement in patients undergoing orthodontic… (2023) · Cochrane | Two studies (62 participants), not pooled. Abellan 2021: no significant difference in molar intrusion at 3 months (1.25 vs 1.72 mm) or 6 months (1.09 vs 1.28 mm), nor rate per month. Hasan 2022: increased intrusion… | 2 studies · 62 participants | Ungraded |
Low level laser therapy (LLLT) vs Conventional orthodontic appliance treatment Orthodontically-induced inflammatory root resorption (OIIRR) during molar intrusion · Adolescents and adults with malocclusion undergoing fixed orthodontic appliance treatment Non‐surgical adjunctive interventions for accelerating tooth movement in patients undergoing orthodontic… (2023) · Cochrane | Abellan 2021 assessed OIIRR using CBCT after intrusion of maxillary molars; no evidence of significant increase or reduction with LLLT. Statistical test results not published. | 1 study | Ungraded |
In-office laser therapy (all types combined) vs Placebo (placebo laser or placebo agent) or no treatment Changes in intensity of pain (VAS 0 to 10) tested through air blast stimuli · Patients aged above 12 years with self-reported tooth hypersensitivity confirmed on clinical evaluation · Long term (more than 2 months) Laser therapy for dentinal hypersensitivity (2021) · Cochrane | MD -2.60 [-4.47, -0.73] | 5 studies · 564 participants | Very low |
Er,Cr:YSGG laser (erbium,chromium:yttrium-scandium-gallium-garnet) vs Placebo (placebo laser or placebo agent) or no treatment Changes in intensity of pain (VAS 0 to 10) tested through air blast stimuli · Patients aged above 12 years with self-reported tooth hypersensitivity confirmed on clinical evaluation · Short term (0 to 24 hours) Laser therapy for dentinal hypersensitivity (2021) · Cochrane | MD -4.61 [-4.83, -4.39] | 3 studies | Ungraded |
Nd:YAG laser (neodymium-doped:yttrium-aluminum-garnet) vs Placebo (placebo laser or placebo agent) or no treatment Changes in intensity of pain (VAS 0 to 10) tested through air blast stimuli · Patients aged above 12 years with self-reported tooth hypersensitivity confirmed on clinical evaluation · Long term (more than 2 months) Laser therapy for dentinal hypersensitivity (2021) · Cochrane | MD 0.18 [-0.84, 1.20] | 1 study | Ungraded |
In-office laser therapy (all types combined) vs Placebo (placebo laser or placebo agent) or no treatment Changes in intensity of pain (VAS 0 to 10) tested through air blast stimuli · Patients aged above 12 years with self-reported tooth hypersensitivity confirmed on clinical evaluation · Short term (0 to 24 hours) Laser therapy for dentinal hypersensitivity (2021) · Cochrane | MD -2.24 [-3.55, -0.93] | 13 studies · 978 participants | Low |
In-office laser therapy (all types combined) vs Placebo (placebo laser or placebo agent) or no treatment Changes in intensity of pain (VAS 0 to 10) tested through air blast stimuli · Patients aged above 12 years with self-reported tooth hypersensitivity confirmed on clinical evaluation · Medium term (24 hours to 2 months) Laser therapy for dentinal hypersensitivity (2021) · Cochrane | MD -2.46 [-3.57, -1.35] | 11 studies · 1007 participants | Very low |
Diode laser, visible red (630 nm to 700 nm) vs Placebo (placebo laser or placebo agent) or no treatment Changes in intensity of pain (VAS 0 to 10) tested through tactile stimuli · Patients aged above 12 years with self-reported tooth hypersensitivity confirmed on clinical evaluation · Medium term (24 hours to 2 months) Laser therapy for dentinal hypersensitivity (2021) · Cochrane | MD -2.95 [-5.14, -0.75] | 4 studies | Ungraded |
Diode laser, near infrared (700 nm to 850 nm) vs Placebo (placebo laser or placebo agent) or no treatment Changes in intensity of pain (VAS 0 to 10) tested through air blast stimuli · Patients aged above 12 years with self-reported tooth hypersensitivity confirmed on clinical evaluation · Medium term (24 hours to 2 months) Laser therapy for dentinal hypersensitivity (2021) · Cochrane | MD -3.22 [-4.88, -1.56] | 4 studies | Ungraded |
Diode laser, near infrared (850 nm to 980 nm) vs Placebo (placebo laser or placebo agent) or no treatment Changes in intensity of pain (VAS 0 to 10) tested through air blast stimuli · Patients aged above 12 years with self-reported tooth hypersensitivity confirmed on clinical evaluation · Short term (0 to 24 hours) Laser therapy for dentinal hypersensitivity (2021) · Cochrane | MD -1.90 [-2.49, -1.31] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Diode laser, near infrared (850 nm to 980 nm) vs Placebo (placebo laser or placebo agent) or no treatment Changes in intensity of pain (VAS 0 to 10) tested through tactile stimuli · Patients aged above 12 years with self-reported tooth hypersensitivity confirmed on clinical evaluation · Medium term (24 hours to 2 months) Laser therapy for dentinal hypersensitivity (2021) · Cochrane | MD -1.83 [-2.36, -1.30] | 1 study | Ungraded |
In-office laser therapy (all types combined) vs Placebo (placebo laser or placebo agent) or no treatment Changes in intensity of pain (VAS 0 to 10) tested through tactile stimuli · Patients aged above 12 years with self-reported tooth hypersensitivity confirmed on clinical evaluation · Long term (more than 2 months) Laser therapy for dentinal hypersensitivity (2021) · Cochrane | MD -3.52 [-10.37, 3.33] | 2 studies · 184 participants | Very low |
Nd:YAG laser (neodymium-doped:yttrium-aluminum-garnet) vs Placebo (placebo laser or placebo agent) or no treatment Changes in intensity of pain (VAS 0 to 10) tested through tactile stimuli · Patients aged above 12 years with self-reported tooth hypersensitivity confirmed on clinical evaluation · Short term (0 to 24 hours) Laser therapy for dentinal hypersensitivity (2021) · Cochrane | MD -0.25 [-0.91, 0.41] | 1 study | Ungraded |
In-office laser therapy (all types combined) vs Placebo (placebo laser or placebo agent) or no treatment Changes in intensity of pain (VAS 0 to 10) tested through tactile stimuli · Patients aged above 12 years with self-reported tooth hypersensitivity confirmed on clinical evaluation · Medium term (24 hours to 2 months) Laser therapy for dentinal hypersensitivity (2021) · Cochrane | MD -1.73 [-3.17, -0.30] | 9 studies · 591 participants | Very low |
Diode laser, near infrared (700 nm to 850 nm) vs Placebo (placebo laser or placebo agent) or no treatment Changes in intensity of pain (VAS 0 to 10) tested through tactile stimuli · Patients aged above 12 years with self-reported tooth hypersensitivity confirmed on clinical evaluation · Medium term (24 hours to 2 months) Laser therapy for dentinal hypersensitivity (2021) · Cochrane | MD -0.68 [-3.57, 2.21] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Nd:YAG laser (neodymium-doped:yttrium-aluminum-garnet) vs Placebo (placebo laser or placebo agent) or no treatment Changes in intensity of pain (VAS 0 to 10) tested through tactile stimuli · Patients aged above 12 years with self-reported tooth hypersensitivity confirmed on clinical evaluation · Medium term (24 hours to 2 months) Laser therapy for dentinal hypersensitivity (2021) · Cochrane | MD -1.06 [-2.15, 0.03] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Nd:YAG laser (neodymium-doped:yttrium-aluminum-garnet) vs Placebo (placebo laser or placebo agent) or no treatment Changes in intensity of pain (VAS 0 to 10) tested through air blast stimuli · Patients aged above 12 years with self-reported tooth hypersensitivity confirmed on clinical evaluation · Short term (0 to 24 hours) Laser therapy for dentinal hypersensitivity (2021) · Cochrane | MD 0.22 [-0.55, 0.99] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Er:YAG laser (erbium-doped:yttrium-aluminum-garnet) vs Placebo (placebo laser or placebo agent) or no treatment Outcome NR · Patients aged above 12 years with self-reported tooth hypersensitivity confirmed on clinical evaluation Laser therapy for dentinal hypersensitivity (2021) · Cochrane | We did not find any eligible study to evaluate erbium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet (Er:YAG) or carbon dioxide (CO2) laser compared with placebo/no treatment. | 0 studies | No studies |