A comparative evaluation of retention of pit and fissure sealants placed with conventional acid etching and Er,Cr:YSGG laser etching: A randomised controlled trial

Kumar, Gyanendra; Dhillon, Jatinder Kaur; Rehman, Ferah

doi:10.5978/islsm.16-or-24

Cited by 12 publications

(40 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The level of consistency found (kappa coefficient of agreement) between two reviewers performing the initial screening of records was high (κ value=0.93). After the full text examination, nine studies (10 publications [20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29] ) meeting the inclusion criteria were included (figure 1 and table 1), while the remaining 23 studies were excluded due to the reasons reported in the online supplemental appendix 2. The study carried out by Nammour et al was described in two publications.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The study carried out by Nammour et al was described in two publications. 25 26 All nine studies [20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29] were written in English.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“… 20 21 27 29 Three studies were carried out on permanent teeth (molar and premolars) 20 21 29 , while one study considered only primary molars. 24 CO 2 , Nd:YAG and Er:YAG lasers were the type of devices used in these four included studies.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The nine included studies were published between 1996 and 2015. Seven studies were RCTs [21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28] while the remaining two studies were CCTs. 20 29 All the studies had a split-mouth design where both intervention and control groups were represented by teeth located in opposite sides of single dental arcs rather than in different patients.…”

Section: Included Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Two studies 20 29 were considered to be at high risk of selection bias because they were CCTs without any randomisation procedure for the participants' allocation in both control and intervention groups. The remaining seven studies (eight publications) were RCTs, [21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28] but only one reported adequate concealment of allocation. 22 All studies were at high risk of performance bias (blinding of participants and personnel) due to the nature of treatments.…”

Section: Treatmentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Lasers to prevent dental caries: a systematic review

Pagano

Lombardo

Orso³

et al. 2020

BMJ Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveTo assess the effectiveness of lasers (at sub-ablative parameters) in reducing caries incidence compared with traditional prophylactic interventions (TPIs) when used alone or together with other TPIs such as pits and fissures sealant or fluoride gels or varnishes.DesignA systematic review. Data sources include Medline (via PubMed), Embase, Web of Science and the Cochrane Library (December 2019).Eligibility criteriaOnly randomised trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) dealing with prophylactic lasers use (vs TPI or untreated teeth) were considered as eligible. We excluded in vitro and ex vivo studies.Data extractionEligible studies were selected and data extracted independently by two reviewers. Risk of bias was assessed adopting the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Data on caries incidence, sealant retention, fluoride uptake, adverse events, treatment duration, patients’ discomfort and cost-effectiveness ratio was extracted.Data analysisExtracted data were presented narratively due to the heterogeneity of included studies.ResultsSeven RCTs and two CCTs, all with an evident risk of bias, met inclusion criteria, pooling together 269 individuals and 1628 teeth. CO2, neodymium-doped yttrium aluminium garnet, erbium-doped yttrium aluminum garnet (Er:YAG), erbium, chromium: yttrium scandium gallium garnet (Er,Cr:YSGG) and Argon lasers were used. In the permanent dentition, lasers only when used in combination with TPIs were effective in reducing caries when compared with untreated teeth (risk ratio (RR)=0.44 (0.20–0.97); Er:YAG laser) or with TPIs used alone (RR=0.39 (0.22–0.71); CO2 laser). Moreover, Argon laser significantly improved the fluoride uptake into the enamel surfaces (ANalysis Of VAriance (ANOVA) tests: 95%, p<0.0001). Likewise, sealant retention improved when acid etching was performed on previously irradiated enamel fissures by CO2 laser (RR=0.63 (0.38–1.04)) or Er:YAG laser (RR=0.54 (95% CI: 0.34 to 0.87)). In addition, laser resulted safe and well tolerated by patients.ConclusionDespite some positive indications, an inadequate level of evidence was found in the included studies concerning the lasers’ effectiveness in preventing caries. Further studies with a higher methodological quality level are required.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The study carried out by Nammour et al was described in two publications. 25 26 All nine studies [20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29] were written in English.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Included Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Treatmentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Lasers to prevent dental caries: a systematic review

Pagano

Lombardo

Orso³

et al. 2020

BMJ Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Shear bond strength of acid and laser conditioned enamel and dentine to composite resin restorations: An in vitro study

Habdan

Rabiah

Busayes

2021

Clinical & Exp Dental Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective To compare the shear bond strength of enamel or dentin conditioned with either Er,Cr:YSGG (erbium, chromium: yttrium–scandium–gallium–garnet) laser or phosphoric acid to composite resin restoration. Material and methods Forty posterior human extracted teeth were used. After mesiodistal sectioning of the teeth crowns, the samples were randomly divided into two groups—in the first group (E), bonding was performed on the enamel after roughening and in the second group (D), the enamel was removed and bonding was performed on the dentin. These groups were further randomly divided into two subgroups according to the type of etching (n = 20 each). In the acid‐etched groups (EA and DA), the surfaces were etched with 37% phosphoric acid. In the laser‐conditioned groups (EL and DL), the surfaces were conditioned with Er,Cr:YSGG laser. Total‐etch adhesive system was used to bond all the 80 specimens resin composite. The composite was vertically light‐cured, and the specimens were subjected to a shear bond strength test. Modes of bond failure were determined with a stereomicroscope. Results The highest shear bond strength was observed for the DA group (16.25 ± 1.10 MPa, p < 0.0001), whereas the lowest was observed for the DL group (8.56 ± 0.67 MPa). The adhesive failure mode was the most frequently observed in all groups. Conclusions The shear bond strength of composite resin bonded to enamel and dentin etched with phosphoric acid was higher than when conditioned with Er,Cr:YSGG laser. Thus, laser conditioning is not recommended.

show abstract

The clinical effects of laser preparation of tooth surfaces for fissure sealants placement: a systematic review and meta-analysis

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background This systematic review aimed to assess the clinical effects of laser preparation compared to other types of chemical or mechanical preparation of tooth surfaces used in fissure sealant placement. Methods A systematic literature search was conducted up to January 2019, through Pubmed, Scopus, Medline/EMBASE via OVID and the Cochrane library. Only randomized clinical trials were included. Results Five studies were included in the systematic review and three were included in the meta-analysis. All the studies used acid-etching as a comparator to lasers. All the included studies were rated as having an overall high risk of bias introduced by performance bias. Three studies assessed the clinical effects of fissure sealants placed by acid or laser etching, one compared acid etching versus laser combined with acid etching and one investigated the influence of lasers on the objective and subjective parameters of stress during sealant application in children. The meta-analysis showed no significant difference between laser preparation and conventional acid-etching preparation at 3- ( P = 0.08), 6- ( P = 0.49), and 12-month ( P = 0.87) follow-ups. One study reported that laser preparation as an adjunct to acid-etching enhanced the retention rate. No significant difference in the incidence of caries was reported. And no significant differences were found in heart rates, oxygen saturation or degree of the patient dental anxiety between acid-etching and laser preparation. Conclusion The present limited evidence suggests that lasers could be an effective pretreatment method. The retention rate was similar to that of conventional acid etching. However, the included studies had an overall high risk of bias and more rigorously designed research is needed.

show abstract

A comparative evaluation of retention of pit and fissure sealants placed with conventional acid etching and Er,Cr:YSGG laser etching: A randomised controlled trial

Cited by 12 publications

References 25 publications

Lasers to prevent dental caries: a systematic review

Lasers to prevent dental caries: a systematic review

Shear bond strength of acid and laser conditioned enamel and dentine to composite resin restorations: An in vitro study

The clinical effects of laser preparation of tooth surfaces for fissure sealants placement: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About