Joana Cunha-Cruz1. 1. Dental Public Health Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA.
Abstract
DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Central database as well as the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register and the National Research Register. In addition relevant journals were hand searched from 2000 to 2010 (Lasers in Medical Sciences, Lasers in Surgery and Medicine, Photomedicine and Laser Surgery, Photodiagnosis and Photodynamic Therapy, Journal of Oral Rehabilitation, Journal of Periodontology, Journal of Clinical Periodontology, Journal of Endodontics, Clinical Oral Investigations, Journal of Dental Research, Journal of Oral Laser Applications, Journal of Periodontal Research and Periodontology 2000) together with the reference lists of relevant trials. STUDY SELECTION: Randomised controlled trials (RCT) that included patients with two or more hypersensitive teeth confirmed by evaporative stimulus or tactile hypersensitivity assessment, comparing laser therapy versus other topical desensitising agents, such as fluoride varnish, dentine bonding agents etc, that were published in English. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Studies were assessed for quality by two reviewers independently and data were extracted using a standardised form. Because of heterogeneity of the studies meta-analysis was not performed, so a qualitative synthesis is presented. RESULTS: Eight trials (234 participants) met the inclusion criteria. Half of the included studies compared GaALAS laser with topical desensitising agents, but the findings were conflicting. The remaining studies involved Nd:YAG laser, Er:YAG laser and CO2 laser, and all showed that the three types of lasers were superior to topical desensitising agents, but the superiority was slight. CONCLUSIONS: The review suggests that laser therapy has a slight clinical advantage over topical medicaments in the treatment of dentine hypersensitivity. However more large sample-sized, long-term, high-quality randomised controlled clinical trials are needed before definitive conclusions can be made.
DATA SOURCES: Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Central database as well as the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register and the National Research Register. In addition relevant journals were hand searched from 2000 to 2010 (Lasers in Medical Sciences, Lasers in Surgery and Medicine, Photomedicine and Laser Surgery, Photodiagnosis and Photodynamic Therapy, Journal of Oral Rehabilitation, Journal of Periodontology, Journal of Clinical Periodontology, Journal of Endodontics, Clinical Oral Investigations, Journal of Dental Research, Journal of Oral Laser Applications, Journal of Periodontal Research and Periodontology 2000) together with the reference lists of relevant trials. STUDY SELECTION: Randomised controlled trials (RCT) that included patients with two or more hypersensitive teeth confirmed by evaporative stimulus or tactile hypersensitivity assessment, comparing laser therapy versus other topical desensitising agents, such as fluoride varnish, dentine bonding agents etc, that were published in English. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Studies were assessed for quality by two reviewers independently and data were extracted using a standardised form. Because of heterogeneity of the studies meta-analysis was not performed, so a qualitative synthesis is presented. RESULTS: Eight trials (234 participants) met the inclusion criteria. Half of the included studies compared GaALAS laser with topical desensitising agents, but the findings were conflicting. The remaining studies involved Nd:YAG laser, Er:YAG laser and CO2 laser, and all showed that the three types of lasers were superior to topical desensitising agents, but the superiority was slight. CONCLUSIONS: The review suggests that laser therapy has a slight clinical advantage over topical medicaments in the treatment of dentine hypersensitivity. However more large sample-sized, long-term, high-quality randomised controlled clinical trials are needed before definitive conclusions can be made.