Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

9 questions · 9 findings · 1 reviews · Dental caries

Sort:Best matchNewest Highest certainty Download CSV

No studies found 0 · 0%GRADE not reported 5 · 55.6%Very low 1 · 11.1%Low 3 · 33.3%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%

Diode laser vs electrosurgery

Clinical failure · Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth

It is very uncertain whether diode laser changes clinical failure compared with electrosurgery (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Pulp treatment for extensive decay in primary teeth 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes
6 months
RR 0.20 [0.01, 3.70]
2 studies · 50 participants
Very low

Diode laser vs Ferric sulphate (FS)

Radiological failure · Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth

Diode laser showed no clear difference in radiological failure compared with ferric sulphate (FS) (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Pulp treatment for extensive decay in primary teeth 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes
6 months
RR 0.89 [0.38, 2.12]
3 studies · 130 participants
Low

Diode laser vs Ferric sulphate (FS)

Clinical failure · Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth

Diode laser showed no clear difference in clinical failure compared with ferric sulphate (FS) (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Pulp treatment for extensive decay in primary teeth 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes
6 months
RR 0.23 [0.04, 1.30]
3 studies · 130 participants
Low

Diode laser vs Formocresol (FC)

Radiological failure · Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth

Diode laser showed no clear difference in radiological failure compared with formocresol (FC); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Pulp treatment for extensive decay in primary teeth 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes
12 months
RR 2.00 [0.75, 5.33]
1 study · 80 participants
GRADE not reported

Diode laser vs Formocresol (FC)

Clinical failure · Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth

Diode laser showed no clear difference in clinical failure compared with formocresol (FC); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Pulp treatment for extensive decay in primary teeth 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes
12 months
RR 0.33 [0.01, 7.95]
1 study · 80 participants
GRADE not reported

Diode laser vs electrosurgery

Radiological failure · Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth

Diode laser showed no clear difference in radiological failure compared with electrosurgery (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Pulp treatment for extensive decay in primary teeth 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes
6 months
RR 0.64 [0.19, 2.18]
2 studies · 50 participants
Low

Low-level diode laser vs Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA)

Overall failure · Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth

Low-level diode laser showed no clear difference in overall failure compared with mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Pulp treatment for extensive decay in primary teeth 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes
12 months
RR 4.00 [0.49, 32.72]
1 study · 40 participants
GRADE not reported

Diode laser + mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) vs Formocresol (FC) + zinc oxide and eugenol (ZOE)

Radiological failure · Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth

Diode laser + mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) showed no clear difference in radiological failure compared with formocresol (FC) + zinc oxide and eugenol (ZOE); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Pulp treatment for extensive decay in primary teeth 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes
mean 15.7 months
RR 4.00 [0.48, 33.42]
1 study · 52 participants
GRADE not reported

Diode laser + mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) vs Formocresol (FC) + zinc oxide and eugenol (ZOE)

Clinical failure · Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth

1 finding from 1 review

Pulp treatment for extensive decay in primary teeth 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes
mean 15.7 months
No clinical failure in any participant (Saltzman 2005); not estimable
1 study · 52 participants
GRADE not reported