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
OR 0.39 [0.19, 0.80]
1 study · 42 participants
GRADE not reported
OR 0.55 [0.23, 1.34]
1 study · 42 participants
GRADE not reported
OR 0.41 [0.21, 0.80]
1 study · 42 participants
GRADE not reported
Show 1 more finding
Any planned outcome (sealant retention, caries, etc.) · Patients with premolars/molars requiring pit-and-fissure sealants
No eligible studies compared laser preparation with enameloplasty for fissure sealant placement (evidence gap).
1 finding from 1 review
no estimate extracted
0 studies
No studies found
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
Kumar 2016 (Er,Cr:YSGG laser vs acid-etching): patient acceptance scored on a visual analogue scale; both preparations well accepted, P = 1.000; no significant difference.
1 study · 50 participants
GRADE not reported
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
Walsh 1996 reported laser conditioning time of 7 s vs 70 s for acid preparation; Kumar 2016 reported Er,Cr:YSGG exposure ~10 s vs >35 s for acid etching; laser conditioning was shorter but times were not pooled, and…
2 studies
GRADE not reported
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
OR 0.82 [0.23, 2.85]
1 study · 16 participants
GRADE not reported
OR 1.22 [0.69, 2.16]
3 studies · 80 participants
GRADE not reported
OR 1.05 [0.61, 1.80]
3 studies · 73 participants
GRADE not reported
Show 3 more findings
OR 2.78 [0.87, 8.91]
2 studies · 65 participants
GRADE not reported
OR 1.15 [0.63, 2.10]
1 study · 43 participants
GRADE not reported
OR 0.87 [0.31, 2.45]
1 study · 16 participants
GRADE not reported
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
Any planned outcome (sealant retention, caries, etc.) · Patients with premolars/molars requiring pit-and-fissure sealants
No eligible studies compared laser preparation with air abrasion for fissure sealant placement (evidence gap).
1 finding from 1 review
no estimate extracted
0 studies
No studies found
Adverse events · Caries-free children to young adults with premolars/molars requiring pit-and-fissure sealants
No adverse events were reported in any included study (ungraded, narrative).
1 finding from 1 review
No adverse events (pulpal sensation, post-lasing thermal sensitivity, pulpitis, or other laser-induced pathology) were reported in any of the included studies.
5 studies
GRADE not reported
Development of >=1 new carious lesion (caries incidence) · Children (high caries risk) with permanent molars requiring pit-and-fissure sealants
Caries incidence was 10% with laser-plus-acid versus 22% with acid-etching at 18 months, a non-significant difference (ungraded, single study).
1 finding from 1 review
Durmus 2017 (Er:YAG laser+acid vs acid-etching): caries incidence 10% (n=8) in the laser-plus-acid group vs 22% (n=18) in the acid-etching group at 18 months; difference not statistically significant (P > 0.05).
1 study · 51 participants
GRADE not reported
Dental anxiety (subjective and objective scores) · Children (ages 6-12) receiving pit-and-fissure sealants
Er:YAG laser preparation added to acid-etching did not increase children's dental anxiety versus acid-etching alone (P > 0.05; ungraded, single study).
1 finding from 1 review
Shindova 2018 (Er:YAG laser+acid vs acid-etching): no significant difference between initial and final subjective anxiety scores for the two groups; use of the Er:YAG laser did not provoke anxiety (P > 0.05).
1 study · 64 participants
GRADE not reported