ReviewFrontiers in oral health2026
Efficacy of diode Laser compared to conventional irrigation in endodontic treatment of apical periodontitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Review in Frontiers in oral health, 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
Background: Effective disinfection is essential for the successful management of apical periodontitis. Diode lasers have emerged as a promising adjunct to conventional irrigation techniques in endodontics, offering potential benefits in microbial control and postoperative recovery. However, their comparative clinical efficacy remains uncertain. Objective: This systematic review aims to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of diode laser-assisted irrigation vs. conventional irrigation methods in endodontic treatment of apical periodontitis, focusing on clinical outcomes, radiographic healing, and adverse events. Methods: A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Embase following PRISMA 2020 guidelines. Randomized controlled trials comparing diode laser irrigation with conventional methods were included. Three independent reviewers performed study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment using the RoB 2.0 tool. Primary outcomes included bacterial reduction, postoperative pain, and radiographic healing. Secondary outcomes addressed adverse events and procedural complications. Results: Twelve randomized controlled trials were included, encompassing a total of 863 participants. Diode laser-assisted irrigation demonstrated superior bacterial reduction and postoperative pain control in several studies, particularly when used in conjunction with adjunctive methods such as photodynamic therapy. Radiographic healing outcomes varied across studies, and no serious adverse effects were reported. However, methodological heterogeneity and variability in laser protocols limited comparability. Conclusion: Diode lasers may provide clinical advantages over conventional irrigation in the management of apical periodontitis, particularly in reducing bacterial load and early postoperative pain. Nevertheless, further high-quality trials with standardized protocols are required to confirm these findings and support their widespread clinical adoption. Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO: CRD420251025177.
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.