Er:YAG laser preparation combined with acid-etching vs Acid-etching (phosphoric acid): Sealant retention rate (completely retained)
At 12 months, Er:YAG laser combined with acid-etching significantly improved sealant retention versus acid-etching alone (OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.80, favouring laser+acid; 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 Sealant retention rate (completely retained) · Children with permanent molars requiring pit-and-fissure sealants · 12 months, Clinical (in vivo pit-and-fissure sealant placement) At 12 months, Er:YAG laser combined with acid-etching significantly improved sealant retention versus acid-etching alone (OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.80, favouring laser+acid; ungraded, single study). The clinical effects of laser preparation of tooth surfaces for fissure sealants placement: a systematic… (2019) All outcomes | OR 0.39 [0.19, 0.80] | 1 study · 42 participants | GRADE not reported |
Er:YAG laser preparation combined with acid-etching vs Acid-etching (phosphoric acid) alone Sealant retention rate (completely retained) · Children with permanent molars requiring pit-and-fissure sealants · 6 months, Clinical (in vivo pit-and-fissure sealant placement) At 6 months, adding Er:YAG laser to acid-etching did not significantly change sealant retention versus acid-etching alone (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.34; ungraded, single study). The clinical effects of laser preparation of tooth surfaces for fissure sealants placement: a systematic… (2019) All outcomes | OR 0.55 [0.23, 1.34] | 1 study · 42 participants | GRADE not reported |
Er:YAG laser preparation combined with acid-etching vs Acid-etching (phosphoric acid) alone Sealant retention rate (completely retained) · Children with permanent molars requiring pit-and-fissure sealants · 18 months, Clinical (in vivo pit-and-fissure sealant placement) At 18 months, Er:YAG laser combined with acid-etching significantly improved sealant retention versus acid-etching alone (OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.80, favouring laser+acid; ungraded, single study). The clinical effects of laser preparation of tooth surfaces for fissure sealants placement: a systematic… (2019) All outcomes | OR 0.41 [0.21, 0.80] | 1 study · 42 participants | GRADE not reported |
Er:YAG laser preparation combined with acid-etching vs Acid-etching (phosphoric acid) alone Sealant retention rate (completely retained) · Children with permanent molars requiring pit-and-fissure sealants · 3 months, Clinical (in vivo pit-and-fissure sealant placement) At 3 months, adding Er:YAG laser to acid-etching did not significantly change sealant retention versus acid-etching alone (OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.14 to 1.64; ungraded, single study). The clinical effects of laser preparation of tooth surfaces for fissure sealants placement: a systematic… (2019) All outcomes | OR 0.47 [0.14, 1.64] | 1 study · 42 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.
- Durmus 2017 · 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.