ArticleInternational journal of clinical pediatric dentistry2024
Clinical and Radiographic Efficacy of Low-level Laser Therapy and Formocresol as Pulpotomy Agents in Primary Molars: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.
Article in International journal of clinical pediatric dentistry, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Umbrella review of low-level light therapy: evidence across clinical conditions.Lasers in medical science · 2026Pooled it
- Efficacy of Laser Pulpotomy vs. Conventional Vital Pulpotomy in Primary Teeth: A Comparative Clinical Analysis.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
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
Research question: To evaluate the effectiveness of low-level laser therapy (LLLT) as a pulpotomy agent in primary molars. Research protocol: This systematic review followed the recommendation of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guideline 2020. Literature search: An electronic search of the databases was performed to find the effectiveness of LLLT over formocresol as a pulpotomy agent in primary molars in children aged between 3 and 10 years. Data extraction: Authors independently extracted the data from the 14 included studies based on the inclusion criteria. The inclusion criteria comprised studies that compared the clinical and radiographical effectiveness of LLLT pulpotomy with formocresol pulpotomy in primary molars using randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Quality appraisal: The risk of bias was assessed using a tool developed by the Cochrane Collaboration for RCT studies. Data analysis: The meta-analyses were performed using the fixed-effects model. Heterogeneity was assessed by a Q test and quantified with I Results and interpretation of results: The search resulted in 390 published studies. After the removal of duplicate studies and analysis of full-text articles, 14 studies were selected for systematic review. Overall, the results demonstrated a high risk of selection and performance bias. No statistically significant difference was found between LLLT and formocresol as pulpotomy agents when compared clinically and radiographically at 6-9 and 12-month follow-up periods. LLLT is a good alternative method to be used as a pulpotomy agent in cases of reversible pulpitis. Key message: Low-level laser therapy is an emerging and trending branch in dentistry because of its beneficial effects in various treatment approaches. It can be effectively used in the pulpotomy procedure due to its properties to reduce pulp inflammation, improve healing, and preserve dental pulp vitality. How to cite this article: Doiphode AR, Kalaskar R, Kalaskar A,
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.