SynthesisLasers in medical science2026
Effectiveness of high-power laser use in the removal of esthetic restorations: 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This systematic review aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of high-power lasers in the removal of esthetic restorations compared with conventional methods. The review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and registered in PROSPERO (registration number: CRD420251055736). A comprehensive electronic search was performed in MEDLINE, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library. Study selection, data extraction, and methodological quality assessment were independently performed by four reviewers using QUIN tool for in vitro studies. A total of 2.384 records were identified, of which 19 in vitro studies conducted on extracted human permanent teeth met the eligibility criteria and were included in the qualitative synthesis. The included studies evaluated different high-power laser systems, predominantly Er: YAG and Er, Cr: YSGG lasers, as well as CO₂ lasers. Five studies were classified as high quality, whereas the remaining fourteen studies were classified as moderate quality. Available laboratory evidence suggests that laser-assisted techniques may represent a potential alternative approach for removing esthetic restorations, with advantages including conservative tissue removal, reduced damage to underlying tooth structures, and intrapulpal temperature increases within acceptable limits. The Er: YAG laser was the most frequently investigated system, with power settings ranging from 1.5 to 5.9 W, showing particularly favorable laboratorial performance in the removal of lithium disilicate restorations, especially in thinner substrates. Within the limitations of the available evidence, high-power lasers appear to be a promising and minimally invasive alternative to conventional methods for the removal of esthetic restorations. However, the predominance of in vitro studies highlights the need for well-designed clinical trials to confirm these findings and support their clinical application.
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.