SynthesisLasers in medical science2024
Assessing the efficacy of Laser pulpotomy versus conventional pulpotomy in primary teeth: A systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials.
Synthesis in Lasers in medical science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Clinical Efficiency of Lasers in Endodontic Treatment of Primary Endodontic Cases: An Umbrella Review of Systematic Reviews.International dental journal · 2026Pooled it
- Laser Pulpotomies' Clinical and Radiographic Success in Primary Teeth by Type of Laser.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Vital Pulp Therapy: Evidence-Based Techniques and Outcomes.Iranian endodontic journal · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThis study systematically reviewed the clinical and radiographic outcomes of laser versus conventional pulpotomy in primary teeth. It also compared the success and effectiveness of different lasers to enhance the understanding and use of laser pulpotomy as an alternative treatment. METHODOLOGY: An electronic search was carried out in PubMed and Cochrane from 1st January 1999 to 31st December 2023. The published articles in the English language were searched using MeSH terms and text words. Only randomized controlled trials with a sample size of more than 10 and follow-ups over 6 months were included. Meta-analysis and forest plots were evaluated by utilizing Review Manager 5.4 software. Two reviewers assessed the risk of bias using the RoB 2 tool and discrepancies were resolved by the third reviewer. The success rates were combined using a random effects model to determine clinical and radiographic outcomes. We used risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CI) as the primary effect measures and set the significance level at 0.05.
resultsOnly 18 studies met the inclusion criteria after an electronic search. Among them, 13 studies evaluated the clinical and radiographic outcomes of laser with formocresol pulpotomy, 2 studies compared with ferric sulfate pulpotomy, and the remaining studies with Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) pulpotomy. The various studies showed different levels of bias. There was no significant difference in the clinical success rate (p = 0.47; RR: 1.01; 95% CI 0.98-1.04; I2 = 0%; p = 0.70) and radiographic success rate (p = 0.94; RR: 1.00; 95% CI 0.91-1.09; I2 = 64%; p = 0.001) between laser pulpotomy and formocresol. Similarly, there was no significant difference between laser pulpotomy and ferric sulfate or MTA pulpotomy.
conclusionDiode laser and LLLT can be considered as alternative pulpotomy agents to formocresol in primary teeth. However, high-quality trials are needed to confirm the accuracy and reliability of these findings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39073657What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.