Gap finder
Search review questions
Each row is one question a systematic review asked: who, what, compared with what, and which outcome, with the effect it found and how certain that is. Words match anywhere in the field.
162 questions in 21 reviews · cluster CL0190
current versionsNo studies 28 · 17.3%Ungraded 98 · 60.5%Very low 27 · 16.7%Low 9 · 5.6%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Intervention categories, outcome domains and clusters are a proposed key pending human validation. Clear all filters
| Question | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Adjunctive antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) applied after subgingival instrumentation (SI) vs Subgingival instrumentation (SI) alone (hand or power-driven, or both), or SI plus placebo/sham aPDT Pocket closure · Adults (> 18 years) with a clinical diagnosis of periodontitis, receiving active (non-surgical anti-infective) treatment · 3 months (change from baseline) Adjunctive antimicrobial photodynamic therapy for treating periodontal and peri‐implant diseases (2024) · Cochrane | Three studies evaluated the proportion of closed pockets three months after treatment (Al-Zahrani 2011; Courval 2020; Rodrigues 2023); studies used different criteria to measure this outcome. All studies reported an… | 3 studies | Ungraded |
Adjunctive antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) applied after subgingival instrumentation (SI) vs Subgingival instrumentation (SI) alone (hand or power-driven, or both), or SI plus placebo/sham aPDT Patient satisfaction · Adults (> 18 years) with a clinical diagnosis of periodontitis, receiving active (non-surgical anti-infective) treatment Adjunctive antimicrobial photodynamic therapy for treating periodontal and peri‐implant diseases (2024) · Cochrane | No studies reported data for this outcome. | NR | No studies |
Adjunctive antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) applied after subgingival instrumentation (SI) vs Subgingival instrumentation (SI) alone (hand or power-driven, or both), or SI plus placebo/sham aPDT Change in probing pocket depth (PPD) · Adults (> 18 years) with a clinical diagnosis of periodontitis, receiving active (non-surgical anti-infective) treatment · 3 months (change from baseline) Adjunctive antimicrobial photodynamic therapy for treating periodontal and peri‐implant diseases (2024) · Cochrane | MD 0.44 [0.29, 0.59] | 35 studies · 873 participants | Ungraded |
Adjunctive antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) applied after subgingival instrumentation (SI) vs Subgingival instrumentation (SI) alone (hand or power-driven, or both), or SI plus placebo/sham aPDT Change in clinical attachment level (CAL) · Adults (> 18 years) with a clinical diagnosis of periodontitis, receiving active (non-surgical anti-infective) treatment · 3 months (change from baseline) Adjunctive antimicrobial photodynamic therapy for treating periodontal and peri‐implant diseases (2024) · Cochrane | MD 0.36 [0.24, 0.48] | 34 studies · 875 participants | Ungraded |
Adjunctive antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) applied after subgingival instrumentation (SI) vs Subgingival instrumentation (SI) alone (hand or power-driven, or both), or SI plus placebo/sham aPDT Change in clinical attachment level (CAL) · Adults (> 18 years) with recurrent periodontitis, receiving supportive (maintenance) periodontal care · 6 months (change from baseline) Adjunctive antimicrobial photodynamic therapy for treating periodontal and peri‐implant diseases (2024) · Cochrane | MD 0.07 [-0.26, 0.40] | 2 studies · 85 participants | Very low |
Er:YAG laser irradiation of sound enamel before acid challenge vs No anticaries intervention (untreated enamel) Demineralised lesion depth · Human tooth enamel specimens, sound/intact (in vitro) · After cariogenic acid challenge / pH cycling Effect of Er:YAG Laser Irradiation on Preventing Enamel Caries: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. (2024) | SMD -0.55 [-0.97, -0.12] | 3 studies · 252 participants | Ungraded |
Adjunctive antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) applied after subgingival instrumentation (SI) vs Subgingival instrumentation (SI) alone (hand or power-driven, or both), or SI plus placebo/sham aPDT Change in probing pocket depth (PPD) · Adults (> 18 years) with a clinical diagnosis of periodontitis, receiving active (non-surgical anti-infective) treatment · 6 months (change from baseline) Adjunctive antimicrobial photodynamic therapy for treating periodontal and peri‐implant diseases (2024) · Cochrane | MD 0.52 [0.31, 0.74] | 15 studies · 452 participants | Very low |
Adjunctive antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) applied after submucosal instrumentation (SI) vs Submucosal instrumentation (SI) alone, or SI plus placebo/sham aPDT Outcome NR · Adults (> 18 years) with peri-implant mucositis, receiving supportive treatment Adjunctive antimicrobial photodynamic therapy for treating periodontal and peri‐implant diseases (2024) · Cochrane | Planned comparison; no studies met the inclusion criteria. The review found only one study of peri-implant disease (peri-implant mucositis, active treatment) and no studies including people with peri-implantitis… | NR | No studies |
Adjunctive antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) applied after submucosal instrumentation (SI) vs Submucosal instrumentation (SI) alone, or SI plus placebo/sham aPDT Outcome NR · Adults (> 18 years) with peri-implantitis, receiving active treatment Adjunctive antimicrobial photodynamic therapy for treating periodontal and peri‐implant diseases (2024) · Cochrane | Planned comparison; no studies met the inclusion criteria. The review found only one study of peri-implant disease (peri-implant mucositis, active treatment) and no studies including people with peri-implantitis… | NR | No studies |
Adjunctive antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) applied after subgingival instrumentation (SI) vs Subgingival instrumentation (SI) alone (hand or power-driven, or both), or SI plus placebo/sham aPDT Pocket closure · Adults (> 18 years) with a clinical diagnosis of periodontitis, receiving active (non-surgical anti-infective) treatment · 6 months (change from baseline) Adjunctive antimicrobial photodynamic therapy for treating periodontal and peri‐implant diseases (2024) · Cochrane | No studies measured this outcome at 6 months (SoF row labeled 'Change in pocket depth from baseline to 6 months after initial treatment'). | NR | No studies |
Adjunctive antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) applied after submucosal instrumentation (SI) vs Submucosal instrumentation (SI) alone, or SI plus placebo/sham aPDT Change in probing depth (PD/PPD) · Adults (> 18 years) with peri-implant mucositis, receiving active treatment · 3 months (change from baseline) Adjunctive antimicrobial photodynamic therapy for treating periodontal and peri‐implant diseases (2024) · Cochrane | MD -0.10 [-0.57, 0.37] | 1 study · 38 participants | Ungraded |
Adjunctive antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) applied after submucosal instrumentation (SI) vs Submucosal instrumentation (SI) alone, or SI plus placebo/sham aPDT Outcome NR · Adults (> 18 years) with peri-implantitis, receiving supportive treatment Adjunctive antimicrobial photodynamic therapy for treating periodontal and peri‐implant diseases (2024) · Cochrane | Planned comparison; no studies met the inclusion criteria. The review found only one study of peri-implant disease (peri-implant mucositis, active treatment) and no studies including people with peri-implantitis… | NR | No studies |
Adjunctive antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) applied after submucosal instrumentation (SI) vs Submucosal instrumentation (SI) alone, or SI plus placebo/sham aPDT Patient satisfaction · Adults (> 18 years) with peri-implant mucositis, receiving active treatment Adjunctive antimicrobial photodynamic therapy for treating periodontal and peri‐implant diseases (2024) · Cochrane | Only one study reported evidence for adjunctive aPDT in people with peri-implant disease (Al Rifaiy 2022). Data were only available for two outcomes (PPD and BOP), both reported only at three months. No studies… | NR | No studies |
Adjunctive antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) applied after subgingival instrumentation (SI) vs Subgingival instrumentation (SI) alone (hand or power-driven, or both), or SI plus placebo/sham aPDT Pocket closure · Adults (> 18 years) with recurrent periodontitis, receiving supportive (maintenance) periodontal care · 3 months (change from baseline) Adjunctive antimicrobial photodynamic therapy for treating periodontal and peri‐implant diseases (2024) · Cochrane | Three studies evaluated the proportion of closed pockets three months after treatment (Campos 2013; Grzech-Lesniak 2019; Ruhling 2010); studies used different criteria to measure this outcome. All studies reported an… | 3 studies | Ungraded |
Adjunctive antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) applied after subgingival instrumentation (SI) vs Subgingival instrumentation (SI) alone (hand or power-driven, or both), or SI plus placebo/sham aPDT Change in probing pocket depth (PPD) · Adults (> 18 years) with recurrent periodontitis, receiving supportive (maintenance) periodontal care · 3 months (change from baseline) Adjunctive antimicrobial photodynamic therapy for treating periodontal and peri‐implant diseases (2024) · Cochrane | MD 0.44 [-0.20, 1.08] | 6 studies · 244 participants | Ungraded |
Adjunctive antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) applied after submucosal instrumentation (SI) vs Submucosal instrumentation (SI) alone, or SI plus placebo/sham aPDT Pocket closure · Adults (> 18 years) with peri-implant mucositis, receiving active treatment Adjunctive antimicrobial photodynamic therapy for treating periodontal and peri‐implant diseases (2024) · Cochrane | Only one study reported evidence for adjunctive aPDT in people with peri-implant disease (Al Rifaiy 2022). Data were only available for two outcomes (PPD and BOP), both reported only at three months. No studies… | NR | No studies |
Adjunctive antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) applied after subgingival instrumentation (SI) vs Subgingival instrumentation (SI) alone (hand or power-driven, or both), or SI plus placebo/sham aPDT Change in probing pocket depth (PPD) · Adults (> 18 years) with recurrent periodontitis, receiving supportive (maintenance) periodontal care · 6 months (change from baseline) Adjunctive antimicrobial photodynamic therapy for treating periodontal and peri‐implant diseases (2024) · Cochrane | MD -0.04 [-0.19, 0.10] | 3 studies · 125 participants | Very low |
Adjunctive antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) applied after subgingival instrumentation (SI) vs Subgingival instrumentation (SI) alone (hand or power-driven, or both), or SI plus placebo/sham aPDT Patient satisfaction · Adults (> 18 years) with recurrent periodontitis, receiving supportive (maintenance) periodontal care Adjunctive antimicrobial photodynamic therapy for treating periodontal and peri‐implant diseases (2024) · Cochrane | No studies reported data for this outcome. | NR | No studies |
Adjunctive antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) applied after subgingival instrumentation (SI) vs Subgingival instrumentation (SI) alone (hand or power-driven, or both), or SI plus placebo/sham aPDT Change in clinical attachment level (CAL) · Adults (> 18 years) with a clinical diagnosis of periodontitis, receiving active (non-surgical anti-infective) treatment · 6 months (change from baseline) Adjunctive antimicrobial photodynamic therapy for treating periodontal and peri‐implant diseases (2024) · Cochrane | MD 0.44 [0.24, 0.64] | 13 studies · 414 participants | Very low |
Adjunctive antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) applied after subgingival instrumentation (SI) vs Subgingival instrumentation (SI) alone (hand or power-driven, or both), or SI plus placebo/sham aPDT Change in clinical attachment level (CAL) · Adults (> 18 years) with recurrent periodontitis, receiving supportive (maintenance) periodontal care · 3 months (change from baseline) Adjunctive antimicrobial photodynamic therapy for treating periodontal and peri‐implant diseases (2024) · Cochrane | MD 0.07 [-0.21, 0.36] | 5 studies · 204 participants | Ungraded |
Er:YAG laser irradiation of sound enamel before acid challenge vs No anticaries intervention (untreated enamel) Enamel mineral loss · Human tooth enamel specimens, sound/intact (in vitro) · After cariogenic acid challenge / pH cycling Effect of Er:YAG Laser Irradiation on Preventing Enamel Caries: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. (2024) | SMD -2.09 [-3.29, -0.88] | 4 studies | Ungraded |
Adjunctive antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) applied after submucosal instrumentation (SI) vs Submucosal instrumentation (SI) alone, or SI plus placebo/sham aPDT Change in clinical attachment level (CAL) · Adults (> 18 years) with peri-implant mucositis, receiving active treatment Adjunctive antimicrobial photodynamic therapy for treating periodontal and peri‐implant diseases (2024) · Cochrane | Only one study reported evidence for adjunctive aPDT in people with peri-implant disease (Al Rifaiy 2022). Data were only available for two outcomes (PPD and BOP), both reported only at three months. No studies… | NR | No studies |
Adjunctive antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) applied after subgingival instrumentation (SI) vs Subgingival instrumentation (SI) alone (hand or power-driven, or both), or SI plus placebo/sham aPDT Pocket closure · Adults (> 18 years) with recurrent periodontitis, receiving supportive (maintenance) periodontal care · 6 months (change from baseline) Adjunctive antimicrobial photodynamic therapy for treating periodontal and peri‐implant diseases (2024) · Cochrane | No studies measured this outcome at 6 months (SoF row labeled 'Change in pocket depth from baseline to 6 months after treatment'); no studies reported these data at six months after treatment. | NR | No studies |
Er:YAG laser irradiation of sound enamel before acid challenge vs No anticaries intervention (untreated enamel) Calcium ions released in acidic solution · Human tooth enamel specimens, sound/intact (in vitro) · After acid immersion (acid dissolution) Effect of Er:YAG Laser Irradiation on Preventing Enamel Caries: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. (2024) | SMD -0.40 [-0.96, 0.15] | 6 studies · 292 participants | Ungraded |
Low level laser therapy (LLLT) vs Conventional orthodontic appliance treatment Rate of orthodontic tooth movement during space closure stage (maxillary arch), mm/month · Adolescents and adults with malocclusion undergoing fixed orthodontic appliance treatment · Space closure stage Non‐surgical adjunctive interventions for accelerating tooth movement in patients undergoing orthodontic… (2023) · Cochrane | MD 0.18 [0.10, 0.26] | 1 study · 45 participants | Very low |
Low level laser therapy (LLLT) vs Conventional orthodontic appliance treatment Total number of orthodontic appliance adjustment appointments during alignment stage · Adolescents and adults with malocclusion undergoing fixed orthodontic appliance treatment · Alignment stage Non‐surgical adjunctive interventions for accelerating tooth movement in patients undergoing orthodontic… (2023) · Cochrane | MD -2.25 [-2.52, -1.97] | 2 studies · 125 participants | Very low |
Low level laser therapy (LLLT) vs Conventional orthodontic appliance treatment Patient perception of pain and discomfort (VAS 0 to 100 mm) · Adolescents and adults with malocclusion undergoing fixed orthodontic appliance treatment · Space closure / first visit Non‐surgical adjunctive interventions for accelerating tooth movement in patients undergoing orthodontic… (2023) · Cochrane | MD -0.4 [-1.87, 1.07] | 1 study · 37 participants | Very low |
Low level laser therapy (LLLT) vs Conventional orthodontic appliance treatment Duration of orthodontic treatment during alignment stage · Adolescents and adults with malocclusion undergoing fixed orthodontic appliance treatment · Alignment stage Non‐surgical adjunctive interventions for accelerating tooth movement in patients undergoing orthodontic… (2023) · Cochrane | MD -48.87 [-56.48, -41.26] | 3 studies · 92 participants | Very low |
Low level laser therapy (LLLT) vs Conventional orthodontic appliance treatment Patient-reported need for analgesics · Adolescents and adults with malocclusion undergoing fixed orthodontic appliance treatment Non‐surgical adjunctive interventions for accelerating tooth movement in patients undergoing orthodontic… (2023) · Cochrane | Patient-reported need for analgesics | Not reported | NR | No studies |
Low level laser therapy (LLLT) vs Conventional orthodontic appliance treatment Total number of orthodontic appliance adjustment visits during overall treatment · Adolescents and adults with malocclusion undergoing fixed orthodontic appliance treatment Non‐surgical adjunctive interventions for accelerating tooth movement in patients undergoing orthodontic… (2023) · Cochrane | No study reported on the influence of LLLT on the total number of orthodontic appliance adjustment visits to complete a course of treatment. | NR | No studies |
Low level laser therapy (LLLT) vs Conventional orthodontic appliance treatment Duration of total overall orthodontic treatment · Adolescents and adults with malocclusion undergoing fixed orthodontic appliance treatment Non‐surgical adjunctive interventions for accelerating tooth movement in patients undergoing orthodontic… (2023) · Cochrane | No study reported on the influence of LLLT on the total overall orthodontic treatment duration. | NR | No studies |
Low level laser therapy (LLLT) vs Conventional orthodontic appliance treatment Rate of orthodontic tooth movement during alignment stage (percentage reduction in LII), first month · Adolescents and adults with malocclusion undergoing fixed orthodontic appliance treatment · First month of alignment (also second month) Non‐surgical adjunctive interventions for accelerating tooth movement in patients undergoing orthodontic… (2023) · Cochrane | MD 1.63 [-2.60, 5.86] | 2 studies · 56 participants | Very low |
Low level laser therapy (LLLT) vs Conventional orthodontic appliance treatment Rate of maxillary molar intrusion for correction of anterior open bite · Adolescents and adults with malocclusion undergoing fixed orthodontic appliance treatment · 3 and 6 months Non‐surgical adjunctive interventions for accelerating tooth movement in patients undergoing orthodontic… (2023) · Cochrane | Two studies (62 participants), not pooled. Abellan 2021: no significant difference in molar intrusion at 3 months (1.25 vs 1.72 mm) or 6 months (1.09 vs 1.28 mm), nor rate per month. Hasan 2022: increased intrusion… | 2 studies · 62 participants | Ungraded |
Low level laser therapy (LLLT) vs Conventional orthodontic appliance treatment Orthodontically-induced inflammatory root resorption (OIIRR) during molar intrusion · Adolescents and adults with malocclusion undergoing fixed orthodontic appliance treatment Non‐surgical adjunctive interventions for accelerating tooth movement in patients undergoing orthodontic… (2023) · Cochrane | Abellan 2021 assessed OIIRR using CBCT after intrusion of maxillary molars; no evidence of significant increase or reduction with LLLT. Statistical test results not published. | 1 study | Ungraded |
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 · Long term (more than 2 months) Laser therapy for dentinal hypersensitivity (2021) · Cochrane | MD -2.60 [-4.47, -0.73] | 5 studies · 564 participants | Very low |
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 · Short term (0 to 24 hours) Laser therapy for dentinal hypersensitivity (2021) · Cochrane | MD -4.61 [-4.83, -4.39] | 3 studies | Ungraded |
Nd:YAG laser (neodymium-doped:yttrium-aluminum-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 · Long term (more than 2 months) Laser therapy for dentinal hypersensitivity (2021) · Cochrane | MD 0.18 [-0.84, 1.20] | 1 study | Ungraded |
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 · Short term (0 to 24 hours) Laser therapy for dentinal hypersensitivity (2021) · Cochrane | MD -2.24 [-3.55, -0.93] | 13 studies · 978 participants | Low |
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 · Medium term (24 hours to 2 months) Laser therapy for dentinal hypersensitivity (2021) · Cochrane | MD -2.46 [-3.57, -1.35] | 11 studies · 1007 participants | Very low |
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 · Medium term (24 hours to 2 months) Laser therapy for dentinal hypersensitivity (2021) · Cochrane | MD -2.95 [-5.14, -0.75] | 4 studies | Ungraded |
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 · Medium term (24 hours to 2 months) Laser therapy for dentinal hypersensitivity (2021) · Cochrane | MD -3.22 [-4.88, -1.56] | 4 studies | Ungraded |
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 · Short term (0 to 24 hours) Laser therapy for dentinal hypersensitivity (2021) · Cochrane | MD -1.90 [-2.49, -1.31] | 1 study | Ungraded |
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 · Medium term (24 hours to 2 months) Laser therapy for dentinal hypersensitivity (2021) · Cochrane | MD -1.83 [-2.36, -1.30] | 1 study | Ungraded |
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 · Long term (more than 2 months) Laser therapy for dentinal hypersensitivity (2021) · Cochrane | MD -3.52 [-10.37, 3.33] | 2 studies · 184 participants | Very low |
Nd:YAG laser (neodymium-doped:yttrium-aluminum-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 · Short term (0 to 24 hours) Laser therapy for dentinal hypersensitivity (2021) · Cochrane | MD -0.25 [-0.91, 0.41] | 1 study | Ungraded |
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 · Medium term (24 hours to 2 months) Laser therapy for dentinal hypersensitivity (2021) · Cochrane | MD -1.73 [-3.17, -0.30] | 9 studies · 591 participants | Very low |
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 · Medium term (24 hours to 2 months) Laser therapy for dentinal hypersensitivity (2021) · Cochrane | MD -0.68 [-3.57, 2.21] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Nd:YAG laser (neodymium-doped:yttrium-aluminum-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 · Medium term (24 hours to 2 months) Laser therapy for dentinal hypersensitivity (2021) · Cochrane | MD -1.06 [-2.15, 0.03] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Nd:YAG laser (neodymium-doped:yttrium-aluminum-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 · Short term (0 to 24 hours) Laser therapy for dentinal hypersensitivity (2021) · Cochrane | MD 0.22 [-0.55, 0.99] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Er:YAG laser (erbium-doped:yttrium-aluminum-garnet) vs Placebo (placebo laser or placebo agent) or no treatment Outcome NR · Patients aged above 12 years with self-reported tooth hypersensitivity confirmed on clinical evaluation Laser therapy for dentinal hypersensitivity (2021) · Cochrane | 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 |