OBJECTIVE: A randomised controlled trial to determine the acceptability to dentists and patients of cavity preparation with anErbium:YAG laser as compared with conventional handpieces. METHODS:Fifteen dentists (9 GDPs, 1 community dentist and 5 hospital dentists) treated 77 patients (age range 3.5-68 years old) who had two matched cavities, in a split mouth, randomised trial. One cavity was prepared conventionally, the other with the laser, with dentist and patient preference determined by questionnaire. RESULTS: In the majority of cases, where dentists expressed a preference, it was for conventional cavity preparation, and this was significant (P < 0.001). In more than half of the laser appointments, dentists had to use conventional handpieces to complete the cavity. Principle difficulties reported with the laser were access (25 cases) and slow speed of cutting (11 cases). Patients aged > or = 10 years who expressed a preference, preferred laser treatment, and this was significant (P < 0.001). Patients aged < 10 years, assessed using a simplified pictorial questionnaire, did not show a significant preference for either technique. CONCLUSIONS: Dentists preferred conventional handpieces for cavity preparation while patients aged > or = 10 years old preferred laser treatment. Patients < 10 years old did not express a preference.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVE: A randomised controlled trial to determine the acceptability to dentists and patients of cavity preparation with an Erbium:YAG laser as compared with conventional handpieces. METHODS: Fifteen dentists (9 GDPs, 1 community dentist and 5 hospital dentists) treated 77 patients (age range 3.5-68 years old) who had two matched cavities, in a split mouth, randomised trial. One cavity was prepared conventionally, the other with the laser, with dentist and patient preference determined by questionnaire. RESULTS: In the majority of cases, where dentists expressed a preference, it was for conventional cavity preparation, and this was significant (P < 0.001). In more than half of the laser appointments, dentists had to use conventional handpieces to complete the cavity. Principle difficulties reported with the laser were access (25 cases) and slow speed of cutting (11 cases). Patients aged > or = 10 years who expressed a preference, preferred laser treatment, and this was significant (P < 0.001). Patients aged < 10 years, assessed using a simplified pictorial questionnaire, did not show a significant preference for either technique. CONCLUSIONS: Dentists preferred conventional handpieces for cavity preparation while patients aged > or = 10 years old preferred laser treatment. Patients < 10 years old did not express a preference.