ReviewChildren (Basel, Switzerland)2026
Comparative Efficacy of Er:YAG Laser and Dental Turbine in Pediatric Dentistry: A Systematic Review.
Review in Children (Basel, Switzerland), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimThis systematic review compared erbium lasers (Er:YAG/Er,Cr:YSGG) with conventional rotary instruments (dental turbine/high-speed handpiece) for caries removal and cavity preparation in pediatric dentistry, focusing on patient-centered outcomes and short-term restorative performance.
methodsFollowing PRISMA guidance, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science were searched for studies published between January 2010 and November 2025. Eligible studies were in vivo/human investigations in children with carious primary teeth comparing erbium laser versus rotary instrumentation.
resultsEleven studies met the inclusion criteria. Across the included trials, erbium laser treatment was consistently associated with reduced intraoperative pain and improved comfort, often accompanied by lower anxiety indicators and higher child acceptance compared with rotary preparation. Several studies also reported a reduced need for local anesthesia in the laser group. In contrast, operative time was generally longer with erbium lasers than with turbines. When restorations were evaluated, clinical performance and short-term success (up to 12 months) were comparable between laser- and bur-prepared cavities, with no consistent disadvantages observed for laser preparation.
conclusionsOverall, erbium lasers appear to be a clinically effective and child-friendly alternative to conventional turbines, offering superior patient comfort while maintaining comparable short-term restorative outcomes, albeit at the cost of longer procedure duration.
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.