Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38096248›Full record

ArticlePloS one2023

Evaluation of the effectiveness and practicality of erbium lasers for ceramic restoration removal: A retrospective clinical analysis.

Janina Golob Deeb, Kinga Grzech-Lesniak, Sompop Bencharit

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 18% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. A review on laser-assisted veneer debonding.Lasers in medical science · 2026
    Review
  2. Is high-power laser irradiation a time efficient method to debond zirconia restorations?Dental materials : official publication of the Academy of Dental Materials · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Janina Golob DeebDepartment of Periodontics, School of Dentistry, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, United States of America.
Kinga Grzech-LesniakDepartment of Periodontics, School of Dentistry, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0002-5700-4577
Sompop BencharitOffice of Oral Health Innovation, College of Dental Medicine, Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0003-1209-9362
Virginia Commonwealth University · USMedical University of South Carolina · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe purpose of this study was to assess the effectiveness and practicality of erbium lasers in the removal of ceramic restorations and appliances from natural teeth and dental implant abutments in clinical practice.

methodsA retrospective analysis was conducted, involving 29 clinical cases with a total of 52 abutments requiring the removal of various ceramic restorations. The analysis evaluated the clinical procedures performed, including the type and material of the prosthetic, the type of cement used, laser setting parameters, retrieval time, and retrieval success.

resultsOut of the 52 abutments, 50 were successfully retrieved without causing any damage (>95%) using either an Er,Cr:YSGG laser (N = 6) or an Er:YAG laser (N = 46). In one case, a crown was partially sectioned to prevent any negative impact of laser irradiation on the adhesive strength between the post and tooth, and in another case, a fracture occurred during debonding. The restorations consisted of 13 lithium disilicate and 39 zirconia units, including six veneers, 38 single crowns, and three fixed partial dentures (FPDs). The retrieval time varied depending on the restoration type, material thickness, cement type, retention form/fitting of the abutment and restoration, ranging from 2.25 ±0.61 minutes for veneers, 6.89 ±8.07 minutes for crowns, to 25 ±10 minutes per abutment for FPDs. Removal of a zirconia crown required more time, 7.12±8.91 minutes, compared to a lithium disilicate crown, 5.86 ±2.41 minutes. The debonding time was influenced by the laser settings as well as materials and types of prosthesis.

conclusionsErbium lasers present a safe and effective alternative to invasive methods for removing ceramic restorations, without causing harm to the abutment or prosthesis. Laser-assisted debonding allows for recementation of the restorations during the same appointment, making it a conservative and viable option for ceramic crown retrieval in clinical settings.

Indexed as

Lasers, Solid-StateCeramicsCrownsDental PorcelainDental Restoration FailureErbiumMaterials TestingRetrospective StudiesZirconiumDental PorcelainErbiumZirconiumzirconium oxide

Identifiers

PMID38096248
PMCPMC10721072
OpenAlexW4389725765

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.