Question · asked by 1 review
Laser (Er:YAG, Er,Cr:YSGG, or Nd:YAG) vs Conventional mechanical caries removal (standard drill; handpiece with a bur): Restoration survival
- Population
- Children, adolescents and adults with caries in deciduous and permanent teeth (age 3.5 to 84 years)
- Intervention
- Laser (Er:YAG, Er,Cr:YSGG, or Nd:YAG)
- Comparison
- Conventional mechanical caries removal (standard drill; handpiece with a bur)
- Outcome
- Restoration survival
It is very uncertain whether laser (Er:YAG, Er,Cr:YSGG, or Nd:YAG) changes durability of restoration compared with conventional mechanical caries removal (standard drill; handpiece… (very low certainty).
What each review found
Include earlier review versionsNo studies found 0 · 0%GRADE not reported 2 · 66.7%Very low 1 · 33.3%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%
| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Laser (Er:YAG, Er,Cr:YSGG, or Nd:YAG) vs Conventional mechanical caries removal (standard drill; handpiece with a bur) Durability of restoration · Children, adolescents and adults with caries in deciduous and permanent teeth (age 3.5 to 84 years) · 6 months follow-up It is very uncertain whether laser (Er:YAG, Er,Cr:YSGG, or Nd:YAG) changes durability of restoration compared with conventional mechanical caries removal (standard drill; handpiece… (very low certainty). Lasers for caries removal in deciduous and permanent teeth (2016) · Cochrane All outcomes | RR 2.40 [0.65, 8.77] | 4 studies · 236 participants | Very low |
Laser (Er:YAG, Er,Cr:YSGG, or Nd:YAG) vs Conventional mechanical caries removal (standard drill; handpiece with a bur) Durability of restoration · Children, adolescents and adults with caries in deciduous and permanent teeth (age 3.5 to 84 years) · 2 years follow-up Laser (Er:YAG, Er,Cr:YSGG, or Nd:YAG) showed no clear difference in durability of restoration compared with conventional mechanical caries removal (standard drill; handpiece…; GRADE not reported. Lasers for caries removal in deciduous and permanent teeth (2016) · Cochrane All outcomes | RR 0.50 [0.02, 14.60] | 1 study | GRADE not reported |
Laser (Er:YAG, Er,Cr:YSGG, or Nd:YAG) vs Conventional mechanical caries removal (standard drill; handpiece with a bur) Durability of restoration · Children, adolescents and adults with caries in deciduous and permanent teeth (age 3.5 to 84 years) · 1 year follow-up Laser (Er:YAG, Er,Cr:YSGG, or Nd:YAG) showed no clear difference in durability of restoration compared with conventional mechanical caries removal (standard drill; handpiece…; GRADE not reported. Lasers for caries removal in deciduous and permanent teeth (2016) · Cochrane All outcomes | RR 1.40 [0.29, 6.78] | 2 studies | GRADE not reported |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Lasers for caries removal in deciduous and permanent teeth 2016 · Cochrane All outcomes | 2016-06 | Not listed | Not assessed |
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.