Results for each outcome in the included studies
| Author(s) and Year | Study duration | Caries incidence | Sealant retention | Fluoride uptake | Adverse events (irreversible dental pulpitis) | Other outcomes |
| Brugnera et al 199720 | 48 months | Permanent teeth (a) CO2 laser alone vs untreated teeth: caries incidence reduction of 11% (RR=0.89 (95% CI: 0.40–1.97), p=0.77), not statistically relevant difference and (b) CO2 laser+sealants vs untreated teeth: caries incidence reduction of 78% (RR=0.22 (95% CI: 0.05–0.94), p=0.02), statistically relevant difference | Permanent teeth CO2 laser etching+acid etching vs acid etching: sealant drops-out reduction of 37%(RR=0.63 (95% CI: 0.38–1.04), p=0.059), not statistically relevant difference | Cost effectiveness: not described; patients’ discomfort: not reported; duration of treatment: no comparison was made between the intervention and control groups | ||
| Durmus et al 2017 | 18 months | Permanent teeth Er:YAG laser+sealants vs sealants: caries incidence reduction of 56% (RR=0.44 (95% CI: 0.20–0.97), p=0.03), statistically relevant difference | Permanent teeth Er:YAG laser etching+acid etching vs acid etching: sealant drops-out reduction of 46% (RR=0.54 (95% CI: 0.34–0.87), p=0.01), statistically relevant difference | Cost effectiveness: not described; patients’ discomfort: not reported; duration of treatment: no comparison was made between the intervention and control groups | ||
| Goodis et al 200422 | 1 month | No episodes of irreversible dental pulpitis (n=0/96 irradiated teeth) when CO2 laser was used | Cost effectiveness: not described; patients’ discomfort: not reported; duration of treatment: no comparison was made between the intervention and control groups | |||
| Karaman et al 201323 | 24 months | Permanent teeth Er,Cr:YSGG laser etching vs acid etching: sealant drops-out reduction of 13%(RR=0.87 (95% CI: 0.37–2.06); p=0.75), not statistically relevant difference | Cost effectiveness: not described; patients’ discomfort: Er,Cr:YSGG laser vs sealants, not statistically relevant difference was found (measured with VAS); duration of treatment: no comparison was made between the intervention and control groups | |||
| Kumar et al 201624 | 12 months | Permanent teeth Er,Cr:YSGG laser etching vs acid etching: same number of sealant drops-out (n=78/100) not statistically relevant difference | Cost effectiveness: not described; patients’ discomfort: not reported; duration of treatment: no comparison was made between the intervention and control groups | |||
| Nammour et al 2003 and 200525 26 | 1 week 6 months | Permanent teeth Laser+1.23% acidulated phosphate fluoride gel vs 1.23% acidulated phosphate fluoride: enamel fluoride uptake increased four times (ANOVA tests=95%, p<0.0001; R2=0.9751—Bartlett’s statistic corrected=134 and p<0.0001) not statistically relevant difference | Cost effectiveness: not described; patients’ discomfort: not reported; duration of treatment: no comparison was made between the intervention and control groups | |||
| Raucci-Neto et al 201527 | 12 months | Primary teeth Nd:YAG laser vs untreated teeth: caries incidence reduction of 70% (RR=0.30 (95% CI: 0.11 to 0.78)), statistically relevant difference Sealants vs untreated teeth caries incidence reduction of 33% (RR=0.67 (95% CI: 0.35 to 1.26), p=0.19), not statistically relevant difference | Cost effectiveness: not described; patients’ discomfort: not reported; duration of treatment: no comparison was made between the intervention and control groups | |||
| Walsh 199628 | 18 months | Permanent teeth CO2 laser etching vs acid etching: sealant drops-out reduction of 61%(RR=0.39 (95% CI: 0.07 to 2.05), p=0.24), not statistically relevant difference | No episodes of irreversible dental pulpitis (n=0/96 irradiated teeth) when CO2 laser was used | Cost effectiveness: not described; patients’ discomfort: not reported; duration of treatment: no comparison was made between the intervention and control groups | ||
| Zezell et al 200929 | 12 months | Permanent teeth Nd:YAG laser+1.23% acidulated phosphate fluoride gel vs 1.23% acidulated phosphate fluoride gel: caries incidence reduction of 61%(RR=0.39 (95% CI: 0.22 to 0.71), p=0.001), statistically relevant difference | Cost effectiveness: not described; patients’ discomfort: not reported; duration of treatment: no comparison was made between the intervention and control groups |
ANOVA, ANalysis Of VAriance; Er,Cr:YSGG, erbium, chromium: yttrium scandium gallium garnet; Er:YAG, erbium-doped yttrium aluminum garnet; Nd:YAG, neodymium-doped yttrium aluminium garnet; RR, risk ratio; VAS, Visual Analogue Scale.