SynthesisInternational dental journal2026
Clinical Efficiency of Lasers in Endodontic Treatment of Primary Endodontic Cases: An Umbrella Review of Systematic Reviews.
Synthesis in International dental journal, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate and synthesise the current evidence on the efficacy of laser-activated irrigation in endodontics, with a focus on microbial reduction, postoperative outcomes, and its potential as an adjunct to conventional irrigants.
methodA comprehensive search was conducted to identify relevant systematic reviews. A total of 319 systematic reviews were initially identified. After the removal of 116 duplicates, 203 records were screened. Of these, 22 systematic reviews met the eligibility criteria. However, reviews that included exclusively in vitro studies or were considered to have limited clinical relevance were excluded. Ultimately, 9 systematic reviews were included in this umbrella review, evaluating different laser systems such as Er:YAG, Er,Cr:YSGG, Nd:YAG, and diode lasers in the context of root canal irrigation. This review was registered at PROSPERO (CRD42025599352). For this umbrella review, 5 electronic databases (PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, SciELO, Web of Science, and LILACS) were systematically searched from inception through December 2024, with no language or publication date restrictions applied. Study selection followed predefined eligibility criteria, and the methodological quality of the included systematic reviews was assessed using the AMSTAR 2 tool.
conclusionsThe available evidence on laser-activated irrigation in endodontics remains limited and heterogeneous. Although some systematic reviews suggest potential benefits in canal disinfection and postoperative outcomes, the findings are inconsistent and largely constrained by variability in laser wavelengths, study designs, and outcome measures. Consequently, further standardised, high-quality clinical research is required before definitive conclusions regarding the clinical effectiveness of laser-activated irrigation can be established. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Laser-assisted irrigation should currently be regarded as an adjunct with unproven clinical benefit, pending robust evidence from well-designed studies with standardised protocols and clinically relevant outcomes.
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.