ArticleJournal of oral biology and craniofacial research
Evaluation and comparison of the efficacy of the diode laser and Biodentine on dentinal tubule occlusion.
Article in Journal of oral biology and craniofacial research. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background & aim: Dental hypersensitivity (DH) is a common issue characterized by discomfort and pain when cold, hot, or acidic substances are consumed. DH treatment aims to control or eliminate causative factors and utilize desensitizing agents to occlude open dentinal tubules; however, there is no standardized definitive treatment yet. The increasing use of lasers, especially diode lasers, along with innovative materials such as Biodentin has contributed to advancing treatments. This study aimed to evaluate and compare the efficacy of a diode laser and Biodentin in the treatment of dentinal tubule occlusion. Materials & methods: In this experimental study, 48 extracted human teeth were randomly divided into four groups: a control group (no treatment), a Biodentine-treated group, a diode laser 660 nm-treated group, and a combination group treated with both laser and Biodentine. After treatment, the samples were examined by scanning electron microscopy (SEM), and the percentage of tubule occlusion was categorized into four levels. Results: A total of 83.3 % of the samples in the combination group (laser and Biodentine) achieved level 3 occlusion (more than 75 % occlusion), whereas 91.7 % of those in the Biodentine-only group were also in level 3. The percentage of patients in the laser-only group was 33.3 % in Level 2 and 66.7 % in Level 1 occlusion. Conclusion: In conclusion, there was no significant difference in the occlusion measurement between the combination treatment group and the Biodentine-only group, with both being primarily rated as Level 3 occlusions. Therefore, the use of a diode laser at 660 nm in conjunction with Biodentine has effects similar to those of Biodentine alone.
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.