OBJECTIVES: It has been suggested that laser preconditioning can produce dental anaesthesia. This study aimed to assess the response of the dental pulp to laser preconditioning. METHODS: The effects of laser preconditioning, sham laser (negative control), and composite curing light (positive control) on the response of the dental pulp to electric pulp testing was investigated in this double-blind crossover trial with six volunteers. The Er,Cr:YSGG laser or curing light was shone on a premolar tooth in a sweeping motion for 30 seconds (in the sham treatment, the laser was not activated) in blindfolded volunteers subjected to a consistent aural stimulus. Treatment method at each visit was randomized and performed by a researcher not involved in pulp testing. Teeth were pulp tested twice initially by another member of the research team to get baseline readings, immediately following the treatment, and thereafter every two minutes for 10 minutes. Results were analyzed using analysis of variance and an independent-sample t-test. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in pulpal response between treatments (p>0.05). CONCLUSION:Laser preconditioning did not affect pulpal response as measured by an electronic pulp tester. Laser preconditioning did not result in any pain or noticeable symptoms for both teeth and soft tissues.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: It has been suggested that laser preconditioning can produce dental anaesthesia. This study aimed to assess the response of the dental pulp to laser preconditioning. METHODS: The effects of laser preconditioning, sham laser (negative control), and composite curing light (positive control) on the response of the dental pulp to electric pulp testing was investigated in this double-blind crossover trial with six volunteers. The Er,Cr:YSGG laser or curing light was shone on a premolar tooth in a sweeping motion for 30 seconds (in the sham treatment, the laser was not activated) in blindfolded volunteers subjected to a consistent aural stimulus. Treatment method at each visit was randomized and performed by a researcher not involved in pulp testing. Teeth were pulp tested twice initially by another member of the research team to get baseline readings, immediately following the treatment, and thereafter every two minutes for 10 minutes. Results were analyzed using analysis of variance and an independent-sample t-test. RESULTS: There were no significant differences in pulpal response between treatments (p>0.05). CONCLUSION: Laser preconditioning did not affect pulpal response as measured by an electronic pulp tester. Laser preconditioning did not result in any pain or noticeable symptoms for both teeth and soft tissues.