Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

Refine by population, intervention, comparison or outcome
More filters
Evidence found and GRADE certainty

113 questions · 141 findings · 6 reviews · Esthetic dentistry

No studies found 16 · 11.3%GRADE not reported 64 · 45.4%Very low 54 · 38.3%Low 7 · 5%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%

In-office laser therapy (all types combined) vs Placebo (placebo laser or placebo agent) or no treatment

Changes in intensity of pain (VAS 0 to 10) tested through air blast stimuli · Patients aged above 12 years with self-reported tooth hypersensitivity confirmed on clinical evaluation

It is very uncertain whether in-office laser therapy (all types combined) changes changes in intensity of pain (VAS 0 to 10) tested through air blast… compared with placebo (placebo laser or placebo agent) or no treatment (very low certainty).

3 findings from 1 review

Er,Cr:YSGG laser (erbium,chromium:yttrium-scandium-gallium-garnet) vs Placebo (placebo laser or placebo agent) or no treatment

Changes in intensity of pain (VAS 0 to 10) tested through air blast stimuli · Patients aged above 12 years with self-reported tooth hypersensitivity confirmed on clinical evaluation

Er,Cr:YSGG laser (erbium,chromium:yttrium-scandium-gallium-garnet) led to lower changes in intensity of pain (VAS 0 to 10) tested through air blast… compared with placebo (placebo laser or placebo agent) or no treatment; GRADE not reported.

3 findings from 1 review

Nd:YAG laser vs Placebo (placebo laser or placebo agent) or no treatment

Changes in intensity of pain (VAS 0 to 10) tested through air blast stimuli · Patients aged above 12 years with self-reported tooth hypersensitivity confirmed on clinical evaluation

Nd:YAG laser (neodymium-doped:yttrium-aluminum-garnet) showed no clear difference in changes in intensity of pain (VAS 0 to 10) tested through air blast… compared with placebo (placebo laser or placebo agent) or no treatment; GRADE not reported.

3 findings from 1 review

In-office laser therapy (all types combined) vs Placebo (placebo laser or placebo agent) or no treatment

Adverse events · Patients aged above 12 years with self-reported tooth hypersensitivity confirmed on clinical evaluation
2 findings from 1 review

Diode laser, visible red (630 nm to 700 nm) vs Placebo (placebo laser or placebo agent) or no treatment

Changes in intensity of pain (VAS 0 to 10) tested through tactile stimuli · Patients aged above 12 years with self-reported tooth hypersensitivity confirmed on clinical evaluation

Diode laser, visible red (630 nm to 700 nm) led to lower changes in intensity of pain (VAS 0 to 10) tested through tactile… compared with placebo (placebo laser or placebo agent) or no treatment; GRADE not reported.

3 findings from 1 review

Diode laser, near infrared (700 nm to 850 nm) vs Placebo (placebo laser or placebo agent) or no treatment

Changes in intensity of pain (VAS 0 to 10) tested through air blast stimuli · Patients aged above 12 years with self-reported tooth hypersensitivity confirmed on clinical evaluation

Diode laser, near infrared (700 nm to 850 nm) led to lower changes in intensity of pain (VAS 0 to 10) tested through air blast… compared with placebo (placebo laser or placebo agent) or no treatment; GRADE not reported.

3 findings from 1 review

Diode laser, near infrared (850 nm to 980 nm) vs Placebo (placebo laser or placebo agent) or no treatment

Changes in intensity of pain (VAS 0 to 10) tested through air blast stimuli · Patients aged above 12 years with self-reported tooth hypersensitivity confirmed on clinical evaluation

Diode laser, near infrared (850 nm to 980 nm) led to lower changes in intensity of pain (VAS 0 to 10) tested through air blast… compared with placebo (placebo laser or placebo agent) or no treatment; GRADE not reported.

2 findings from 1 review

Diode laser, near infrared (850 nm to 980 nm) vs Placebo (placebo laser or placebo agent) or no treatment

Changes in intensity of pain (VAS 0 to 10) tested through tactile stimuli · Patients aged above 12 years with self-reported tooth hypersensitivity confirmed on clinical evaluation

Diode laser, near infrared (850 nm to 980 nm) led to lower changes in intensity of pain (VAS 0 to 10) tested through tactile… compared with placebo (placebo laser or placebo agent) or no treatment; GRADE not reported.

2 findings from 1 review

In-office laser therapy (all types combined) vs Placebo (placebo laser or placebo agent) or no treatment

Changes in intensity of pain (VAS 0 to 10) tested through tactile stimuli · Patients aged above 12 years with self-reported tooth hypersensitivity confirmed on clinical evaluation

It is very uncertain whether in-office laser therapy (all types combined) changes changes in intensity of pain (VAS 0 to 10) tested through tactile… compared with placebo (placebo laser or placebo agent) or no treatment (very low certainty).

3 findings from 1 review

Nd:YAG laser vs Placebo (placebo laser or placebo agent) or no treatment

Changes in intensity of pain (VAS 0 to 10) tested through tactile stimuli · Patients aged above 12 years with self-reported tooth hypersensitivity confirmed on clinical evaluation

Nd:YAG laser (neodymium-doped:yttrium-aluminum-garnet) showed no clear difference in changes in intensity of pain (VAS 0 to 10) tested through tactile… compared with placebo (placebo laser or placebo agent) or no treatment; GRADE not reported.

2 findings from 1 review

Diode laser, near infrared (700 nm to 850 nm) vs Placebo (placebo laser or placebo agent) or no treatment

Changes in intensity of pain (VAS 0 to 10) tested through tactile stimuli · Patients aged above 12 years with self-reported tooth hypersensitivity confirmed on clinical evaluation

Diode laser, near infrared (700 nm to 850 nm) showed no clear difference in changes in intensity of pain (VAS 0 to 10) tested through tactile… compared with placebo (placebo laser or placebo agent) or no treatment; GRADE not reported.

2 findings from 1 review

Er:YAG laser (erbium-doped:yttrium-aluminum-garnet) vs Placebo (placebo laser or placebo agent) or no treatment

Outcome not reported · Patients aged above 12 years with self-reported tooth hypersensitivity confirmed on clinical evaluation

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review
  • Laser therapy for dentinal hypersensitivity 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes
    We did not find any eligible study to evaluate erbium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet (Er:YAG) or carbon dioxide (CO2) laser compared with placebo/no treatment.
    0 studies
    No studies found

Diode laser, visible red (630 nm to 700 nm) vs Placebo (placebo laser or placebo agent) or no treatment

Changes in intensity of pain (VAS 0 to 10) tested through air blast stimuli · Patients aged above 12 years with self-reported tooth hypersensitivity confirmed on clinical evaluation

Diode laser, visible red (630 nm to 700 nm) led to lower changes in intensity of pain (VAS 0 to 10) tested through air blast… compared with placebo (placebo laser or placebo agent) or no treatment; GRADE not reported.

3 findings from 1 review

CO2 laser (carbon dioxide) vs Placebo (placebo laser or placebo agent) or no treatment

Outcome not reported · Patients aged above 12 years with self-reported tooth hypersensitivity confirmed on clinical evaluation

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review
  • Laser therapy for dentinal hypersensitivity 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes
    We did not find any eligible study to evaluate erbium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet (Er:YAG) or carbon dioxide (CO2) laser compared with placebo/no treatment.
    0 studies
    No studies found

Er,Cr:YSGG laser (erbium,chromium:yttrium-scandium-gallium-garnet) vs Placebo (placebo laser or placebo agent) or no treatment

Changes in intensity of pain (VAS 0 to 10) tested through tactile stimuli · Patients aged above 12 years with self-reported tooth hypersensitivity confirmed on clinical evaluation

Er,Cr:YSGG laser (erbium,chromium:yttrium-scandium-gallium-garnet) showed no clear difference in changes in intensity of pain (VAS 0 to 10) tested through tactile… compared with placebo (placebo laser or placebo agent) or no treatment; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Bleaching gel with added remineralising agent (fluoride, calcium, or CPP-ACP) vs Bleaching alone (no remineralising agent)

Whitening (bleaching) efficacy · Demineralised / white-spot-lesion enamel (in vitro specimens)

Low-quality in vitro evidence indicates that adding fluoride or other remineralising agents does not impair the whitening/bleaching effect (ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Tooth bleaching (carbamide or hydrogen peroxide; home and/or in-office) vs No bleaching (untreated control)

Colour change / camouflage of white spot lesions (reduction of colour disparity between carious and sound enamel) · Permanent teeth with post-orthodontic white spot lesions (orthodontic patients and in vitro enamel specimens)

Bleaching may diminish colour disparities and camouflage post-orthodontic white spot lesions, but the certainty of the evidence is very low; the findings could neither support nor refute bleaching.

1 finding from 1 review

Laser/light-activated bleaching vs Conventional (non-laser) bleaching with hydrogen or carbamide peroxide

Enamel microhardness / caries susceptibility · Permanent teeth / enamel specimens (in vitro)

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).

1 finding from 1 review

Tooth bleaching (carbamide or hydrogen peroxide; home and/or in-office) vs No bleaching (untreated or pH-cycling control)

Caries susceptibility, enamel demineralisation, erosion, or microhardness · Permanent teeth / enamel specimens (in vitro)

Low-quality in vitro evidence suggests that bleaching of permanent teeth does not increase susceptibility to caries, demineralisation or erosion (ungraded); the clinical question could not be answered because only in vitro studies were available.

1 finding from 1 review