Question · asked by 1 review
Er:YAG laser preparation combined with acid-etching vs Acid-etching (phosphoric acid): Development of >=1 new carious lesion (caries incidence)
- Population
- Children (high caries risk) with permanent molars requiring pit-and-fissure sealants
- Intervention
- Er:YAG laser preparation combined with acid-etching
- Comparison
- Acid-etching (phosphoric acid)
- Outcome
- Development of >=1 new carious lesion (caries incidence)
Caries incidence was 10% with laser-plus-acid versus 22% with acid-etching at 18 months, a non-significant difference (ungraded, single study).
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Er:YAG laser preparation combined with acid-etching vs Acid-etching (phosphoric acid) alone Incidence of dental caries · Children (high caries risk) with permanent molars requiring pit-and-fissure sealants · 18 months, Clinical (in vivo pit-and-fissure sealant placement) Caries incidence was 10% with laser-plus-acid versus 22% with acid-etching at 18 months, a non-significant difference (ungraded, single study). The clinical effects of laser preparation of tooth surfaces for fissure sealants placement: a systematic… (2019) All outcomes | Durmus 2017 (Er:YAG laser+acid vs acid-etching): caries incidence 10% (n=8) in the laser-plus-acid group vs 22% (n=18) in the acid-etching group at 18 months; difference not statistically significant (P > 0.05). | 1 study · 51 participants | GRADE not reported |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| The clinical effects of laser preparation of tooth surfaces for fissure sealants placement: a systematic review and meta-analysis. 2019 All outcomes | January 2019 | 5 | Critically Low / Critically Low |
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.