Streptococcus mutans count · Patients undergoing fixed orthodontic (fixed appliance) treatment (adolescents and adults, ages 12 to 35)
The antibacterial (S. mutans) effect of TiO2 nanoparticles was conflicting across two RCTs (ungraded).
1 finding from 1 review
Dentist satisfaction (masking effect) · Patients with dental fluorosis
Resin infiltration alone produced greater dentist-rated masking than in-office bleaching alone in one study (MD 3.97, 95% CI 3.33 to 4.61; ungraded).
1 finding from 1 review
MD 3.97 [3.33, 4.61]
1 study
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
Incidence of initial enamel caries / white spot lesions adjacent to bracket base (subject level, dichotomized) · Orthodontic patients (any age) undergoing orthodontic treatment (mostly fixed appliances)
Adding a fluoride mouthrinse to daily fluoride toothpaste produced a small reduction in the incidence of initial caries/white spot lesions adjacent to brackets (pooled risk difference -0.07, 95% CI -0.14 to -0.01; 5 studies, 491 subjects), but the authors judged the overall evidence inconclusive (ungraded).
1 finding from 1 review
Side effects or other adverse events · Orthodontic patients (any age) undergoing orthodontic treatment (mostly fixed appliances)
No adverse effects were reported in any of the seven included studies (ungraded).
1 finding from 1 review
Masking effect (esthetic improvement) · Patients with dental fluorosis
Bleaching before resin infiltration did not improve masking of fluorosis compared with infiltration alone (MD -0.30, 95% CI -0.98 to 0.39; moderate certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
MD -0.30 [-0.98, 0.39]
2 studies
Moderate
Visual inspection scores · Patients with early caries lesions in permanent teeth (non-fluoridated water area)
Two trials reported visual inspection scores but could not be pooled (different criteria, missing standard deviations) and gave inconsistent findings, so no quantitative conclusion could be drawn.
1 finding from 1 review
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
Karaman 2013 (Er,Cr:YSGG laser vs acid-etching): incidence of caries was 0% in both groups; not meta-analyzed.
1 study · 16 participants
GRADE not reported
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
Enamel remineralization extent · Human enamel specimens around orthodontic brackets (in vitro)
In vitro, a nano-CaF2-containing orthodontic cement showed significant enamel remineralization versus control in a single study (ungraded).
1 finding from 1 review
Intervention not reported
Pit-and-fissure caries progression (ICDAS), CO2 laser vs fluoride varnish alone
1 finding from 1 review
no estimate extracted
1 study
GRADE not reported
Enamel demineralization (QLF ΔF) · Human enamel specimens under cariogenic challenge (in situ / ex vivo)
Evidence on a synergistic effect of combining CO2 laser with fluoride versus fluoride alone is mixed: one ex-vivo study found combined treatment superior while another found no synergy (ungraded, 2 ex-vivo studies, no pooled estimate).
1 finding from 1 review
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
Enamel mineral loss / remineralisation · Demineralised / white-spot-lesion enamel (in vitro specimens)
Low-quality in vitro evidence indicates that adding fluoride, calcium or CPP-ACP to bleaching agents can reduce enamel mineral loss (ungraded).
1 finding from 1 review
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
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
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