What do systematic reviews say?

Endodontic therapy performed with one type of magnification device (surgical microscope, endoscope or magnifying loupes) vs Endodontic therapy performed with a different type of magnification device

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Magnification devices for endodontic therapy 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes
  No included study assessed this outcome; the review notes that such secondary outcomes were only sporadically reported and were never statistically assessed.
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

Endodontic therapy performed with one type of magnification device (surgical microscope, endoscope or magnifying loupes) vs Endodontic therapy performed with a different type of magnification device

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Magnification devices for endodontic therapy 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes
  No included study assessed this outcome; the review notes that such secondary outcomes were only sporadically reported and were never statistically assessed.
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

Endodontic therapy performed with one type of magnification device (surgical microscope, endoscope or magnifying loupes) vs Endodontic therapy performed with a different type of magnification device

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Magnification devices for endodontic therapy 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes
  No included study assessed procedure time. In the excluded trial Taschieri 2008, based on the operators' experience, completing the surgical procedure took on average four to five minutes longer for the endoscope than…
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

Endodontic therapy performed with one type of magnification device (surgical microscope, endoscope or magnifying loupes) vs Endodontic therapy performed with a different type of magnification device

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Magnification devices for endodontic therapy 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes

  >=1 year after treatment
  None of the studies fulfilled our inclusion criteria; the only trial comparing three magnification devices (Taschieri 2008) was excluded, so no data analysis was conducted.
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

Endodontic therapy performed with one type of magnification device (surgical microscope, endoscope or magnifying loupes) vs Endodontic therapy performed with a different type of magnification device

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Magnification devices for endodontic therapy 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes
  No included study assessed this outcome; the review notes that such secondary outcomes were only sporadically reported and were never statistically assessed.
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

Endodontic therapy performed with one type of magnification device (surgical microscope, endoscope or magnifying loupes) vs Endodontic therapy performed with a different type of magnification device

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Magnification devices for endodontic therapy 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes
  No included study assessed this outcome; the review notes that such secondary outcomes were only sporadically reported and were never statistically assessed.
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

Endodontic therapy (surgical or non-surgical) performed with the aid of one or more magnification devices (surgical microscope, endoscope or magnifying loupes) vs The same endodontic therapy performed without magnification devices (without visual enhancers)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Magnification devices for endodontic therapy 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes
  No included study assessed this outcome; the review notes that such secondary outcomes were only sporadically reported and were never statistically assessed.
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

Endodontic therapy (surgical or non-surgical) performed with the aid of one or more magnification devices (surgical microscope, endoscope or magnifying loupes) vs The same endodontic therapy performed without magnification devices (without visual enhancers)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Magnification devices for endodontic therapy 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes
  No included study assessed this outcome; the review notes that such secondary outcomes were only sporadically reported and were never statistically assessed.
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

Endodontic therapy (surgical or non-surgical) performed with the aid of one or more magnification devices (surgical microscope, endoscope or magnifying loupes) vs The same endodontic therapy performed without magnification devices (without visual enhancers)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Magnification devices for endodontic therapy 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes
  No included study assessed procedure time; such outcomes were only sporadically reported and were never statistically assessed.
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

Endodontic therapy (surgical or non-surgical) performed with the aid of one or more magnification devices (surgical microscope, endoscope or magnifying loupes) vs The same endodontic therapy performed without magnification devices (without visual enhancers)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Magnification devices for endodontic therapy 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes
  No included study assessed this outcome; the review notes that such secondary outcomes were only sporadically reported and were never statistically assessed.
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

Endodontic therapy (surgical or non-surgical) performed with the aid of one or more magnification devices (surgical microscope, endoscope or magnifying loupes) vs The same endodontic therapy performed without magnification devices (without visual enhancers)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Magnification devices for endodontic therapy 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes
  No included study assessed this outcome; the review notes that such secondary outcomes were only sporadically reported and were never statistically assessed.
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

Endodontic therapy (surgical or non-surgical) performed with the aid of one or more magnification devices (surgical microscope, endoscope or magnifying loupes) vs The same endodontic therapy performed without magnification devices (without visual enhancers)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Magnification devices for endodontic therapy 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes

  >=1 year after treatment
  None of the studies fulfilled our inclusion criteria and therefore no data analysis was conducted (three potentially eligible trials were identified from 1234 records; all were excluded).
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

Low‐level laser therapy vs Low-level laser therapy (LLLT) + calcium hydroxide

• Pulp treatment for extensive decay in primary teeth 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes

  6 and 12 months
  No clinical failure in any participant (Fernandes 2015); not estimable
  1 study · 30 participants
  GRADE not reported

Low‐level laser therapy vs Low-level laser therapy (LLLT) + calcium hydroxide

Low-level laser therapy (LLLT) showed no clear difference in radiological failure compared with low-level laser therapy (LLLT) + calcium hydroxide; GRADE not reported.

• Pulp treatment for extensive decay in primary teeth 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes

  12 months
  RR 1.00 [0.24, 4.18]
  1 study · 30 participants
  GRADE not reported

Low‐level laser therapy vs Placebo (sham) laser therapy

• Endodontic procedures for retreatment of periapical lesions 2016 · Cochrane All outcomes

  first postoperative week
  Maximum pain (VRS): 0 per 1000 (placebo) vs 0 per 1000 (LLLT); effect not estimable; 52 participants. No high-pain events in either group.
  1 study · 52 participants
  Very low

Low‐level laser therapy vs Control (no laser device used)

It is very uncertain whether low energy level laser therapy (LLLT) changes maximum pain (verbal rating scale, VRS) compared with control (no laser device used) (very low certainty).

• Endodontic procedures for retreatment of periapical lesions 2016 · Cochrane All outcomes

  first postoperative week
  RR 0.04 [0.00, 0.71]
  1 study · 44 participants
  Very low

Low‐level laser therapy vs Formocresol (FC)

• Pulp treatment for extensive decay in primary teeth 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes

  6 and 12 months
  No clinical failure in any participant (Fernandes 2015); not estimable
  1 study · 30 participants
  GRADE not reported

Low‐level laser therapy vs Calcium hydroxide (CH)

Low-level laser therapy (LLLT) showed no clear difference in radiological failure compared with calcium hydroxide (CH); GRADE not reported.

• Pulp treatment for extensive decay in primary teeth 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes

  6 and 12 months
  RR 0.50 [0.15, 1.64]
  1 study · 30 participants
  GRADE not reported

Low‐level laser therapy vs Calcium hydroxide (CH)

• Pulp treatment for extensive decay in primary teeth 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes

  6 and 12 months
  No clinical failure in any participant (Fernandes 2015); not estimable
  1 study · 30 participants
  GRADE not reported

Low‐level laser therapy vs Formocresol (FC)

Low-level laser therapy (LLLT) showed no clear difference in radiological failure compared with formocresol (FC); GRADE not reported.

• Pulp treatment for extensive decay in primary teeth 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes

  6 and 12 months
  RR 7.00 [0.39, 124.83]
  1 study · 30 participants
  GRADE not reported