Non-Cochrane · intervention · PM41756535
Effect of Flapless Laser Corticotomy on Maxillary Canine Retraction: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Jančauskaitė Ernesta, Varoneckaitė Mariam, Baliutavičiūtė Agnė, et al. · Journal of oral & maxillofacial research · 2025 · PubMed · doi:10.5037/jomr.2025.16402
Findings
Population Patients undergoing fixed orthodontic treatment with maxillary first premolar extraction and canine distalization
6 findings
| Flapless laser corticotomy (Er:YAG or Er,Cr:YSGG laser) | Conventional orthodontic canine retraction without corticotomy (split-mouth control side) | Canine retraction distance (mm) 4 months · Orthodontic treatment, fixed appliances, extraction-based | MD -0.04 [-0.13, 0.05] GRADE not reported 2 studies · 29 participants |
| Flapless laser corticotomy (Er:YAG or Er,Cr:YSGG laser) | Conventional orthodontic canine retraction without corticotomy (split-mouth control side) | Canine retraction distance (mm) 1 month · Orthodontic treatment, fixed appliances, extraction-based | MD 0.83 [0.30, 1.35] GRADE not reported 4 studies · 55 participants |
| Flapless laser corticotomy (Er:YAG or Er,Cr:YSGG laser) | Conventional orthodontic canine retraction without corticotomy (split-mouth control side) | Molar anchorage loss (mm) 1 month · Orthodontic treatment, fixed appliances, extraction-based | MD -0.10 [-0.19, -0.01] GRADE not reported 3 studies · 43 participants |
| Flapless laser corticotomy (Er:YAG or Er,Cr:YSGG laser) | Conventional orthodontic canine retraction without corticotomy (split-mouth control side) | Canine retraction distance (mm) 3 months · Orthodontic treatment, fixed appliances, extraction-based | MD 0.03 [-0.18, 0.24] GRADE not reported 3 studies · 43 participants |
| Flapless laser corticotomy (Er:YAG or Er,Cr:YSGG laser) | Conventional orthodontic canine retraction without corticotomy (split-mouth control side) | Canine rotation (degrees) 1 month · Orthodontic treatment, fixed appliances, extraction-based | MD 1.20 [-1.03, 3.42] GRADE not reported 3 studies · 43 participants |
| Flapless laser corticotomy (Er:YAG or Er,Cr:YSGG laser) | Conventional orthodontic canine retraction without corticotomy (split-mouth control side) | Canine retraction distance (mm) 2 months · Orthodontic treatment, fixed appliances, extraction-based | MD 0.44 [0.09, 0.79] GRADE not reported 3 studies · 43 participants |
Included primary studies 7
Open in Studies| Study | Year | Also included by | Outcomes it informs here | Trial data |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alfawal 2018 Evaluation of piezocision and laser-assisted flapless corticotomy in the acceleration of canine retraction: a randomized controlled trial. PMID:29454369 | 2018 | 1 other review | Canine retraction distance (mm); Canine rotation (degrees); Molar anchorage loss (mm) | not extracted yet |
| Bakr 2023 Effects of Flapless Laser Corticotomy in Upper and Lower Canine Retraction: A Split-mouth, Randomized Controlled Trial. PMID:37159786 | 2023 | 1 other review | Canine retraction distance (mm); Canine rotation (degrees); Molar anchorage loss (mm) | not extracted yet |
| Jaber 2022 Evaluation of the efficacy of laser-assisted flapless corticotomy in accelerating canine retraction: a split-mouth randomized controlled… PMID:33876339 | 2022 | 1 other review | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Mahmoudzadeh 2020 Efficacy of Er,Cr Laser incision Corticotomy in Rapid Maxillary Canine Retraction: A Split-Mouth Randomized Clinical Trial. PMID:33425295 | 2020 | 1 other review | Canine retraction distance (mm); Canine rotation (degrees); Molar anchorage loss (mm) | not extracted yet |
| Chauhan 2022 laser assisted accelerated orthodontics – a split mouth study DOI:10.1080/27705781.2022.2073677 | 2022 | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Salman 2014 matched by author and year (probable) | NR | this review only | not stated | not extracted yet |
| Toodehzaeim 2024 Effect of laser corticotomy on canine retraction rate: a split-mouth randomized clinical trial. PMID:38609926 | 2024 | this review only | Canine retraction distance (mm) | not extracted yet |
Overlap with other reviews
Reviews that include the same primary studies are not independent evidence. Shared counts match studies by PMID, DOI or NCT, and otherwise by author and year (a probable match). Only the non-Cochrane dental reviews have study lists, so overlap with Cochrane reviews is not counted yet.
| Review | Shared studies | Jaccard |
|---|---|---|
| Assessing the efficacy and safety of minimally invasive surgical techniques in enhancing orthodontic tooth movement: A systematic review… (2026) | 4 | 0.07 |
Review question
| Element | Planned (methods) | Found (results) |
|---|---|---|
| Population | Patients with fixed orthodontic appliances after maxillary first premolar extraction and canine distalization, any age | Orthodontic patients with first premolar extraction (103 patients in 7 studies; 55 in meta-analysis); age 15 to 30 years |
| Intervention | Laser-assisted flapless corticotomy | Er:YAG or Er,Cr:YSGG laser corticotomy (n=7) |
| Comparison | Conventional orthodontic treatment without corticotomy | Canine retraction without intervention on contralateral side (n=7) |
| Outcomes | Canine distalization distance (mm); canine rotation; molar anchorage loss | Canine retraction rate; canine rotation; molar anchorage loss; pain, pulp vitality, root resorption (narrative) |
| Study designs | Split-mouth randomized clinical trials | Split-mouth RCTs (n=7) |
| Timing | Not specified | 1 to 4 months |
AMSTAR 2 items
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 | Partial Yes | Partial Yes | yes |
| 3Choice of study designs explained | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 4Comprehensive literature searchcritical | No | Partial Yes | no |
| 5Study selection in duplicate | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 6Data extraction in duplicate | Yes | Yes | yes |
| 7List of excluded studies with reasonscritical | Yes | Yes | 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: No · NRSI: N/A | NRSI: N/A · RCT: Partial 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 | No | No | yes |
| 15Publication bias investigatedcritical | No | No | yes |
| 16Conflicts of interest reported | Yes | Yes | yes |
| Overall | Critically Low | Low | no |