Question · asked by 1 review
Traditional bur cavity preparation vs Er,Cr:YSGG laser cavity preparation: Incidence of microleakage
- Population
- Human teeth requiring cavity preparation and restoration (in vitro)
- Intervention
- Traditional bur cavity preparation
- Comparison
- Er,Cr:YSGG laser cavity preparation
- Outcome
- Incidence of microleakage
At the dentin margin, microleakage did not differ significantly between bur and Er,Cr:YSGG laser preparation (RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.67-2.38; ungraded).
What each review found
Include earlier review versionsNo studies found 0 · 0%GRADE not reported 4 · 100%Very low 0 · 0%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%
| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Traditional bur cavity preparation vs Er,Cr:YSGG laser cavity preparation Incidence of microleakage · Human teeth requiring cavity preparation and restoration (in vitro) · In vitro (extracted human teeth), Dentin margin At the dentin margin, microleakage did not differ significantly between bur and Er,Cr:YSGG laser preparation (RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.67-2.38; ungraded). Does Er,Cr:YSGG reduce the microleakage of restorations when used for cavity preparation? A systematic… (2020) All outcomes | RR 1.26 [0.67, 2.38] | 6 studies | GRADE not reported |
Traditional bur cavity preparation vs Er,Cr:YSGG laser cavity preparation Incidence of microleakage · Human teeth requiring cavity preparation and restoration (in vitro) · In vitro (extracted human teeth), Whole marginal line Along the whole marginal line, microleakage did not differ significantly between bur and Er,Cr:YSGG laser preparation (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.44-3.67; ungraded). Does Er,Cr:YSGG reduce the microleakage of restorations when used for cavity preparation? A systematic… (2020) All outcomes | RR 1.27 [0.44, 3.67] | 5 studies | GRADE not reported |
Traditional bur cavity preparation vs Er,Cr:YSGG laser cavity preparation Incidence of microleakage · Human teeth requiring cavity preparation and restoration (in vitro) · In vitro (extracted human teeth) Er,Cr:YSGG laser cavity preparation produced microleakage similar to traditional burs, with no significant difference (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.85-1.25; ungraded). Does Er,Cr:YSGG reduce the microleakage of restorations when used for cavity preparation? A systematic… (2020) All outcomes | RR 1.03 [0.85, 1.25] | 11 studies | GRADE not reported |
Traditional bur cavity preparation vs Er,Cr:YSGG laser cavity preparation Incidence of microleakage · Human teeth requiring cavity preparation and restoration (in vitro) · In vitro (extracted human teeth), Enamel margin At the enamel margin, microleakage did not differ significantly between bur and Er,Cr:YSGG laser preparation (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.60-1.27; ungraded). Does Er,Cr:YSGG reduce the microleakage of restorations when used for cavity preparation? A systematic… (2020) All outcomes | RR 0.87 [0.60, 1.27] | 6 studies | GRADE not reported |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Er,Cr:YSGG reduce the microleakage of restorations when used for cavity preparation? A systematic review and meta-analysis. 2020 All outcomes | July 2019 | 23 | Critically Low / Critically Low |
Studies behind the findings
The primary studies the full-text reviews tie to this outcome. Reviews with headline outcomes only do not list them here.
- Comparison of Er,Cr:YSGG Laser Handpieces for Class II Preparation and Microleakage of Silorane- or Methacrylate-Based Composite… · 2018 · included by 1 of these review
- Comparison of marginal microleakage of flowable composite restorations in primary canine teeth prepared with high-speed diamond bur,… · 2017 · included by 1 of these review
- Assessment of Microleakage of a Composite Resin Restoration in Primary Teeth Following Class III Cavity Preparation Using Er, Cr: YSGG… · 2016 · included by 1 of these review
- The Use of Bur and Laser for Root Caries Treatment: A Comparative Study · 2013 · included by 1 of these review
- Er,Cr:YSGG laser influence on microleakage of class V composite resin restorations · 2012 · included by 1 of these review
- Microleakage in Class V cavities with self-etching adhesive system and conventional rotatory or laser Er,Cr:YSGG. · 2012 · included by 1 of these review
- Comparison of the Er,Cr:YSGG laser with a chemical vapour deposition bur and conventional techniques for cavity preparation: a… · 2010 · included by 1 of these review
- Influence of etching with erbium, chromium:yttrium–scandium–gallium–garnet laser on microleakage of class V restoration · 2008 · included by 1 of these review
- Rossi 2008 · included by 1 of these review
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.