SynthesisLasers in medical science2026
Diode and er: YAG laser therapy versus other desensitizing treatments for dentin hypersensitivity in molar-incisor hypomineralization: a systematic review.
Synthesis in Lasers in medical science, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study investigated the use of laser therapy for dentin hypersensitivity (DH) in patients with molar-incisor hypomineralization (MIH), compared with other desensitizing treatments. A systematic search was performed in electronic databases: PubMed, Scopus, LILACS, Embase, and Web of Science. Additionally, trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov and ReBEC), grey literature, and manual search were checked. Two reviewers independently performed study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment using the RoB 2 tool. Given the heterogeneity in included studies, only a descriptive analysis was undertaken. From 2,450 potentially eligible studies, three randomized clinical trials were selected for full-text analysis, and included. These studies comprising 462 MIH-affected molars and incisors in patients aged 6–14 years. Follow-up ranged from 1 to 6 months. Interventions included diode lasers (808 nm, 980 nm) and a low-power Er: YAG protocol (0.4 W, 40 mJ, 10 Hz), compared with fluoride varnish, GLUMA desensitizer, or CPP-ACPF mousse. All studies reported DH reduction across groups; however, no statistically significant differences were observed between laser and other desensitizing treatments. Two studies were rated as high risk of bias, and one showed some concerns. Available evidence remains limited and heterogeneous due to few included studies and an overall fragile evidence base, indicating that laser therapy may reduce DH in MIH-affected teeth. Well-designed and standardized randomized clinical trials are still needed to strengthen the evidence base. (PROSPERO registration: CRD42024608626).
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.