Question · asked by 1 review
Laser enamel preparation alone (Er,Cr:YSGG or CO2 laser) vs Acid-etching (phosphoric acid): Sealant retention rate (completely retained)
At 18 months, laser preparation alone did not differ significantly from acid-etching for sealant retention (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.23 to 2.85; ungraded, single study, high risk of bias).
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Laser enamel preparation alone (Er,Cr:YSGG or CO2 laser) vs Acid-etching (phosphoric acid) Sealant retention rate (completely retained) · Caries-free children to young adults with premolars/molars requiring pit-and-fissure sealants · 18 months, Clinical (in vivo pit-and-fissure sealant placement) At 18 months, laser preparation alone did not differ significantly from acid-etching for sealant retention (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.23 to 2.85; ungraded, single study, high risk of bias). The clinical effects of laser preparation of tooth surfaces for fissure sealants placement: a systematic… (2019) All outcomes | OR 0.82 [0.23, 2.85] | 1 study · 16 participants | GRADE not reported |
Laser enamel preparation alone (Er,Cr:YSGG or CO2 laser) vs Acid-etching (phosphoric acid) Sealant retention rate (completely retained) · Caries-free children to young adults with premolars/molars requiring pit-and-fissure sealants · 6 months, Clinical (in vivo pit-and-fissure sealant placement) At 6 months, laser preparation alone did not differ significantly from acid-etching for sealant retention (OR 1.22, 95% CI 0.69 to 2.16; ungraded, high risk of bias). The clinical effects of laser preparation of tooth surfaces for fissure sealants placement: a systematic… (2019) All outcomes | OR 1.22 [0.69, 2.16] | 3 studies · 80 participants | GRADE not reported |
Laser enamel preparation alone (Er,Cr:YSGG or CO2 laser) vs Acid-etching (phosphoric acid) Sealant retention rate (completely retained) · Caries-free children to young adults with premolars/molars requiring pit-and-fissure sealants · 12 months, Clinical (in vivo pit-and-fissure sealant placement) At 12 months, laser preparation alone did not differ significantly from acid-etching for sealant retention (OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.80; ungraded, high risk of bias). The clinical effects of laser preparation of tooth surfaces for fissure sealants placement: a systematic… (2019) All outcomes | OR 1.05 [0.61, 1.80] | 3 studies · 73 participants | GRADE not reported |
Laser enamel preparation alone (Er,Cr:YSGG or CO2 laser) vs Acid-etching (phosphoric acid) Sealant retention rate (completely retained) · Caries-free children to young adults with premolars/molars requiring pit-and-fissure sealants · 3 months, Clinical (in vivo pit-and-fissure sealant placement) At 3 months, laser preparation alone did not differ significantly from acid-etching for sealant retention (OR 2.78, 95% CI 0.87 to 8.91; ungraded, high risk of bias). The clinical effects of laser preparation of tooth surfaces for fissure sealants placement: a systematic… (2019) All outcomes | OR 2.78 [0.87, 8.91] | 2 studies · 65 participants | GRADE not reported |
Laser enamel preparation alone (Er,Cr:YSGG or CO2 laser) vs Acid-etching (phosphoric acid) Sealant retention rate (completely retained) · Caries-free children to young adults with premolars/molars requiring pit-and-fissure sealants · 9 months, Clinical (in vivo pit-and-fissure sealant placement) At 9 months, laser preparation alone did not differ significantly from acid-etching for sealant retention (OR 1.15, 95% CI 0.63 to 2.10; ungraded, single study, high risk of bias). The clinical effects of laser preparation of tooth surfaces for fissure sealants placement: a systematic… (2019) All outcomes | OR 1.15 [0.63, 2.10] | 1 study · 43 participants | GRADE not reported |
Laser enamel preparation alone (Er,Cr:YSGG or CO2 laser) vs Acid-etching (phosphoric acid) Sealant retention rate (completely retained) · Caries-free children to young adults with premolars/molars requiring pit-and-fissure sealants · 24 months, Clinical (in vivo pit-and-fissure sealant placement) At 24 months, laser preparation alone did not differ significantly from acid-etching for sealant retention (OR 0.87, 95% CI 0.31 to 2.45; ungraded, single study, high risk of bias). The clinical effects of laser preparation of tooth surfaces for fissure sealants placement: a systematic… (2019) All outcomes | OR 0.87 [0.31, 2.45] | 1 study · 16 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 |
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.
- A comparative evaluation of retention of pit and fissure sealants placed with conventional acid etching and Er,Cr:YSGG laser etching: A… · 2016 · included by 1 of these review
- Comparison of Acid Versus Laser Etching on the Clinical Performance of a Fissure Sealant: 24-Month Results · 2013 · included by 1 of these review
- Split‐mouth study of sealant retention with carbon dioxide laser versus acid etch conditioning · 1996 · 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.