Non-Cochrane · intervention · PM33023550
Does Er,Cr:YSGG reduce the microleakage of restorations when used for cavity preparation? A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Zhang Yali, Chen Wenfei, Zhang Jinrui, et al. · BMC oral health · 2020 · PubMed · doi:10.1186/s12903-020-01252-x
Full textEvery question was extracted from the full text, figures and supplements by two independent LLM extractors, disagreements adjudicated. Rows cite where in the review the value comes from.
Questions
10
current version
GRADE rated
0
No studies
0
Included studies
23
linked below
No studies 0 · 0%Ungraded 10 · 100%Very low 0 · 0%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Review question
| Element | Planned (methods) | Found (results) |
|---|---|---|
| Population | Human teeth requiring cavity preparation and restoration; RCTs/quasi-RCTs; drop-out <20% | Human extracted teeth in vitro (n=13 studies; primary teeth, premolars, third molars, posterior teeth) |
| Intervention | Er,Cr:YSGG laser cavity preparation; prior acid etching after laser preparation | Er,Cr:YSGG laser preparation (n=13); prior acid etching after laser preparation (n=4) |
| Comparison | Traditional bur cavity preparation; laser preparation without additional acid etching | Traditional bur preparation (n=13); laser without additional acid etching (n=4) |
| Outcomes | Microleakage of restorations | Incidence of microleakage by dye penetration (n=11 in meta-analysis; 2 summarized qualitatively) |
| Study designs | RCTs or quasi-RCTs | In vitro RCTs/quasi-RCTs, parallel design (n=13) |
| Timing | Not specified | Not specified (in vitro) |
Search date: July 2019. Databases: PubMed, EBSCO, Embase, Cochrane Controlled Register of Trials (CENTRAL)
Questions and results
Traditional bur cavity preparation vs Er,Cr:YSGG laser cavity preparation
Population: Human teeth requiring cavity preparation and restoration (in vitro)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Incidence of microleakage Dentin margin At the dentin margin, microleakage did not differ significantly between bur and Er,Cr:YSGG laser preparation (RR 1.26, 95% CI 0.67-2.38; ungraded). Source: Results, 'Primary outcomes' para; Fig. 3 · same question in other reviews | RR 1.26 [0.67, 2.38] | 6 studies | Ungraded |
Incidence of microleakage Whole marginal line Along the whole marginal line, microleakage did not differ significantly between bur and Er,Cr:YSGG laser preparation (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.44-3.67; ungraded). Source: Results, 'Primary outcomes' para; Fig. 3 · same question in other reviews | RR 1.27 [0.44, 3.67] | 5 studies | Ungraded |
Incidence of microleakage Er,Cr:YSGG laser cavity preparation produced microleakage similar to traditional burs, with no significant difference (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.85-1.25; ungraded). Source: Results, 'Primary outcomes' para; Fig. 3 · same question in other reviews | RR 1.03 [0.85, 1.25] | 11 studies | Ungraded |
Incidence of microleakage Enamel margin At the enamel margin, microleakage did not differ significantly between bur and Er,Cr:YSGG laser preparation (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.60-1.27; ungraded). Source: Results, 'Primary outcomes' para; Fig. 3 · same question in other reviews | RR 0.87 [0.60, 1.27] | 6 studies | Ungraded |
No additional acid etching (self-etch adhesive alone) after Er,Cr:YSGG preparation vs Prior acid etching before self-etch adhesive after Er,Cr:YSGG preparation
Population: Er,Cr:YSGG laser-prepared cavities restored with self-etch adhesive systems (in vitro)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Incidence of microleakage Dentin margin At the dentin margin, prior acid etching with self-etch adhesives significantly reduced microleakage (RR 2.44, 95% CI 1.38-4.34; ungraded). Source: Results, 'Secondary outcomes' para; Fig. 4 · same question in other reviews | RR 2.44 [1.38, 4.34] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Incidence of microleakage Enamel margin At the enamel margin, prior acid etching with self-etch adhesives significantly reduced microleakage (RR 3.0, 95% CI 1.54-5.83; ungraded). Source: Results, 'Secondary outcomes' para; Fig. 4 · same question in other reviews | RR 3.00 [1.54, 5.83] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Incidence of microleakage Prior acid etching with self-etch adhesives significantly reduced microleakage after Er,Cr:YSGG preparation (RR 2.69 for no-etch vs etch, 95% CI 1.74-4.15; ungraded). Source: Results, 'Secondary outcomes' para; Fig. 4 · same question in other reviews | RR 2.69 [1.74, 4.15] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
No additional acid etching (etch-and-rinse adhesive alone) after Er,Cr:YSGG preparation vs Prior acid etching before etch-and-rinse adhesive after Er,Cr:YSGG preparation
Population: Er,Cr:YSGG laser-prepared cavities restored with etch-and-rinse adhesive systems (in vitro)
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Incidence of microleakage Prior acid etching with etch-and-rinse adhesives did not significantly change microleakage after Er,Cr:YSGG preparation (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.63-2.22; ungraded). Source: Results, 'Secondary outcomes' para; Fig. 5 · same question in other reviews | RR 1.18 [0.63, 2.22] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Comparison
| Outcome | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Microleakage/infiltration index: Er,Cr:YSGG vs traditional bur Geraldo-Martins 2013 (excluded from meta-analysis; higher microleakage with Er,Cr:YSGG) | Qualitative NR [NR, NR] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Incidence of microleakage: Er,Cr:YSGG vs traditional bur (whole marginal line) Rossi 2008 (excluded from meta-analysis; no significant difference) | Qualitative NR [NR, NR] | 1 study | Ungraded |
AMSTAR 2 appraisal
Two independent extractors rated each item. Their ratings are shown side by side because they have not been reconciled yet. The overall rating follows Shea et al. 2017: one critical flaw gives Low, more than one gives Critically Low.
| Item | Extractor A | Extractor B | Agree |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1Research question includes PICO components | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 2Protocol established before the reviewcritical | No | No | yes |
| 3Choice of study designs explained | No | No | yes |
| 4Comprehensive literature searchcritical | Partial Yes | Partial Yes | yes |
| 5Study selection in duplicate | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 6Data extraction in duplicate | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 7List of excluded studies with reasonscritical | No | No | yes |
| 8Included studies described in detail | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 9Risk of bias assessed satisfactorilycritical | RCT: Yes · NRSI: N/A | NRSI: N/A · RCT: Yes | no |
| 10Funding of included studies reported | No | No | yes |
| 11Appropriate meta-analysis methodscritical | RCT: Yes · NRSI: N/A | NRSI: N/A · RCT: Yes | no |
| 12Impact of risk of bias on the pooled results | No | No | yes |
| 13Risk of bias accounted for in interpretationcritical | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 14Heterogeneity explained | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 15Publication bias investigatedcritical | No | No | yes |
| 16Conflicts of interest reported | Yes | Yes | yes |
| Overall | Critically Low | Critically Low | yes |
Included primary studies 23
Open as a trial list| Study | Also included by | Outcomes it informs here | Trial PICO | Results |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ergin 2018 Comparison of Er,Cr:YSGG Laser Handpieces for Class II Preparation and Microleakage of Silorane- or Methacrylate-Based Composite… DOI:10.1089/pho.2018.4459 | this review only | Incidence of microleakage | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Ergin 2018 Comparison of Er,Cr:YSGG Laser Handpieces for Class II Preparation and Microleakage of Silorane- or Methacrylate-Based Composite… PMID:30188252 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Fattah 2013 Er,Cr:YSGG laser influence on microleakage of class V composite resin restorations DOI:10.1007/s10103-012-1200-6 | this review only | Incidence of microleakage | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Fattah 2013 Er,Cr:YSGG laser influence on microleakage of class V composite resin restorations. PMID:23010956 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Geraldo-Martins 2013 The Use of Bur and Laser for Root Caries Treatment: A Comparative Study DOI:10.2341/11-345-l | this review only | Incidence of microleakage | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Geraldo-Martins 2013 The use of bur and laser for root caries treatment: a comparative study. PMID:23088186 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Gutknecht 2001 Microleakage of composite fillings in Er,Cr:YSGG laser‐prepared class II cavities DOI:10.1002/lsm.1064 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Gutknecht 2001 Microleakage of composite fillings in Er,Cr:YSGG laser-prepared class II cavities. PMID:11344519 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Malekafzali 2017 Comparison of marginal microleakage of flowable composite restorations in primary canine teeth prepared with high-speed diamond bur,… PMID:29133967 | this review only | Incidence of microleakage | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Marotti 2010 Influence of etching with erbium, chromium:yttrium–scandium–gallium–garnet laser on microleakage of class V restoration DOI:10.1007/s10103-008-0623-6 | this review only | Incidence of microleakage | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Marotti 2010 Influence of etching with erbium, chromium:yttrium-scandium-gallium-garnet laser on microleakage of class V restoration. PMID:19011950 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Rossi 2008 matched by author and year (probable) | this review only | Incidence of microleakage | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Rossi 2008 Microleakage of glass ionomer restoration in cavities prepared by Er,Cr:YSGG laser irradiation in primary teeth. PMID:18647510 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Shafiei 2014 matched by author and year (probable) | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Shafiei 2014 Sealing of silorane-based composite in laser-prepared primary teeth: effect of acid etching. PMID:25303503 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Shafiei 2015 matched by author and year (probable) | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Shafiei 2015 Effect of Acid Etching on Long-term Microleakage of Nano Ionomer Restorations in Burand Laser-prepared Cavities in Primary Teeth. PMID:25909836 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Shahabi 2008 Microleakage of composite resin restorations in cervical cavities prepared by Er,Cr:YSGG laser radiation DOI:10.1111/j.1834-7819.2008.00028.x | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Shahabi 2008 Microleakage of composite resin restorations in cervical cavities prepared by Er,Cr:YSGG laser radiation. PMID:18494974 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Subramaniam 2016 Assessment of Microleakage of a Composite Resin Restoration in Primary Teeth Following Class III Cavity Preparation Using Er, Cr: YSGG… PMID:28144438 | this review only | Incidence of microleakage | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Trelles 2012 Microleakage in Class V cavities with self-etching adhesive system and conventional rotatory or laser Er,Cr:YSGG. PMID:24511195 | this review only | Incidence of microleakage | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Yazici 2012 Comparison of the Er,Cr:YSGG laser with a chemical vapour deposition bur and conventional techniques for cavity preparation: a… DOI:10.1007/s10103-010-0833-6 | this review only | Incidence of microleakage | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |
| Yazici 2012 Comparison of the Er,Cr:YSGG laser with a chemical vapour deposition bur and conventional techniques for cavity preparation: a… PMID:20842517 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet | not extracted yet |