SynthesisClinical oral investigations2025
The comparison of lasers and topical desensitizing agents in the management of dentin hypersensitivity: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Clinical oral investigations, 2025. 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.
- Effectiveness of lasers in managing dentine hypersensitivity: an umbrella review.Lasers in medical science · 2025Pooled it
- Longevity of different in-office treatments for dentin hypersensitivity: A 6-month randomized and parallel clinical trial.PloS one · 2026Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo determine whether lasers or topical desensitizing agents are more effective in managing dentin hypersensitivity (DH). MATERIALS AND
methodsThis systematic review was performed according to PRISMA guidelines. An electronic search included MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science (WOS), ClinicalTrials.gov databases, and Scopus. Authors, publication year, study design, details of intervention and control groups, sample size, age, sex, follow-up time, assessment scale, mean, and standard deviation were extracted from the included articles. Only randomized controlled trials were evaluated. Only the random effects model was applied due to high heterogeneity (I
result4,480 of 4,455 studies were excluded. Diode lasers and fluorine compounds were the most commonly used treatments. Lasers were superior in the long-term air blast group, though others did not. The medium-term tactile group indicated publication bias. Sensitivity analysis showed that the medium-term air blast group and short-and medium-term tactile groups lacked robustness. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system assessed the quality of evidence as very low.
conclusionIt is insufficient to determine which treatment is more effective for managing DH. However, clinicians should recognize that laser irradiation is a feasible and reliable treatment for DH. Future research should focus on standardizing methods and exploring cost-effective laser applications. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: DH, a global health issue, requires effective treatment. Lasers and topical desensitizing agents are commonly used in their management, but no definitive conclusion has been reached regarding which is superior.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40268806What 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.