Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

3,747 questions · 3,943 findings · 594 reviews

No studies found 784 · 19.9%GRADE not reported 530 · 13.4%Very low 1,040 · 26.4%Low 981 · 24.9%Moderate 444 · 11.3%High 164 · 4.2%

Laser enamel preparation alone (Er,Cr:YSGG or CO2 laser) vs Acid-etching (phosphoric acid)

Development of >=1 new carious lesion (caries incidence) · Caries-free children to young adults with premolars/molars requiring pit-and-fissure sealants

In the single study reporting it, caries incidence was 0% in both the laser-alone and acid-etching groups (ungraded, single study).

1 finding from 1 review

Er:YAG laser preparation combined with acid-etching vs Acid-etching (phosphoric acid)

Sealant retention rate (completely retained) · Children with permanent molars requiring pit-and-fissure sealants

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).

4 findings from 1 review
Show 1 more finding

Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) pulpotomy dressing vs Platelet-rich fibrin (PRF)

Overall success (composite of clinical and radiographic success) · Immature (young) permanent teeth with open apex and vital pulp exposed to dental caries or trauma, in children aged 6-14 years

A single RCT found no difference in pulpotomy success between MTA and platelet-rich fibrin (both 100% through 24 months; not pooled; ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) pulpotomy dressing vs Calcium-enriched mixture (CEM)

Overall success (composite of clinical and radiographic success) · Immature (young) permanent teeth with open apex and vital pulp exposed to dental caries or trauma, in children aged 6-14 years

A single RCT found no difference in pulpotomy success between MTA and calcium-enriched mixture (both 100% at 6 and 12 months; not pooled; ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Laser enamel preparation alone (Er,Cr:YSGG or CO2 laser) vs Acid-etching (phosphoric acid)

Acceptability · Caries-free children to young adults with premolars/molars requiring pit-and-fissure sealants

Both laser and acid-etching preparation were well accepted by patients (VAS, P = 1.000; ungraded, single study).

1 finding from 1 review

Laser enamel preparation alone (Er,Cr:YSGG or CO2 laser) vs Acid-etching (phosphoric acid)

Clinical (chair-side) time · Caries-free children to young adults with premolars/molars requiring pit-and-fissure sealants

Laser conditioning was reported to take less chair-side time than acid-etching in the studies that measured it, but times were not pooled (ungraded, narrative).

1 finding from 1 review

Laser enamel preparation alone (Er,Cr:YSGG or CO2 laser) vs Acid-etching (phosphoric acid)

Sealant retention rate (completely retained) · Caries-free children to young adults with premolars/molars requiring pit-and-fissure sealants

At 18 months, laser preparation alone did not differ significantly from acid-etching for sealant retention (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.23 to 2.85; ungraded, single study, high risk of bias).

6 findings from 1 review
Show 3 more findings

Er:YAG laser preparation combined with acid-etching vs Acid-etching (phosphoric acid)

Physiological stress indicators (heart rate, oxygen saturation) · Children (ages 6-12) receiving pit-and-fissure sealants

Heart rate and oxygen saturation did not differ significantly between laser-plus-acid and acid-etching (ungraded, single study).

1 finding from 1 review

Intervention not reported

Patient (dichotomous) outcomes (including adverse events) · Healthcare professionals (nurses, physicians including obstetricians)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review