Caries removal using lasers.

Data sourcesCochrane Oral Health Trials Register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Medline Ovid, Embase Ovid, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, Zetoc, ISI Web of Knowledge, US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register ClinicalTrials.gov, and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials up to June 2016.Study selectionRandomised controlled trials, split-mouth trials and cluster-randomised trials comparing laser ablation to drill removal of caries with no restriction in language or participants' age.Data extraction and synthesisStudies were selected and reviewed independently by two reviewers and standard data items extracted. The reviewers assessed the risk of bias of all studies using Cochrane's 'Risk of bias' tool. For all dichotomous outcomes, risk ratios (RR) with 95% of confidence intervals (CI) were calculated, and mean difference (MD) was calculated for continuous data. Primary outcomes were effectiveness in caries excavation and reports of pain. Data were combined using random-effects models. Main results for caries removal were summarised and presented using GRADE proGDT software. Meta-analyses were performed on studies that reported quantitative data.ResultsSix split-mouth randomised controlled trials and three parallel-group randomised trials involving 1,498 primary and permanent teeth from 662 participants ranging from 3.5 to 84 years old were included. Seven hundred and seventy-seven teeth were treated with laser only, 732 with mechanical drills only, and 12 teeth were treated with both techniques in the same tooth on separate caries.Only four studies evaluated caries removal. Of those four, only two reported quantitative data. After meta-analysis, the results showed no significant difference in effectiveness of caries removal between the two treatment methods ((RR) 1.00, 95% (CI) 0.99 to 1.01). Of the five studies that assessed pain, three studies using five-point or six-point pain scale reported less pain experienced using laser. Two studies did not provide complete data for analysis. As for the secondary outcomes of marginal integrity of restorations (three studies), durability (four studies), recurrent caries (two studies), pulpal inflammation or necrosis (four studies), overall results showed no evidence of a difference. When considering the need for anaesthesia (four studies), and participant discomfort (five studies), the overall results showed that the need for anaesthesia and participant discomfort was lower with the laser treatment. Interestingly, the one study that reported operator preference showed that dentists preferred conventional preparation method over laser (P<0.001).ConclusionsThere was insufficient evidence to show that laser removal of caries was more or less efficient than traditional mechanical technique. However, there was some low quality evidence in favour of laser therapy for pain control, need for anaesthesia and patient comfort.