Question · asked by 1 review

Laser/light-activated bleaching vs Conventional (non-laser) bleaching with hydrogen or carbamide peroxide: Enamel microhardness / caries susceptibility

Population
Permanent teeth / enamel specimens (in vitro)
Intervention
Laser/light-activated bleaching
Comparison
Conventional (non-laser) bleaching with hydrogen or carbamide peroxide
Outcome
Enamel microhardness / caries susceptibility

Low-quality in vitro evidence found no support for adding lasers to in-office bleaching; laser-activated bleaching did not appear to affect enamel microhardness or caries risk versus conventional bleaching (ungraded).

What each review found

Include earlier review versions
FindingEffectStudiesGRADE certainty
Laser/light-activated bleaching vs Conventional (non-laser) bleaching with hydrogen or carbamide peroxide
Enamel microhardness / caries susceptibility · Permanent teeth enamel (in vitro specimens) · In vitro laboratory studies
Low-quality in vitro evidence found no support for adding lasers to in-office bleaching; laser-activated bleaching did not appear to affect enamel microhardness or caries risk versus conventional bleaching (ungraded).
Is Bleaching Effective in Managing Post-orthodontic White-spot Lesions? A Systematic Review. (2020) All outcomes
In two studies having high risk of bias, laser-activated bleaching did not seem to affect enamel microhardness or caries risk when compared to conventional bleaching with hydrogen or carbamide peroxide.2 studiesGRADE not reported

Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.

The reviews

ReviewSearched up toIncluded studiesAMSTAR 2
Is Bleaching Effective in Managing Post-orthodontic White-spot Lesions? A Systematic Review.
2020 All outcomes
2018-07-0115Low / 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.

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.