College of Stomatology, Guangxi Medical University, Nanning, China.
Oral Dis. 2021 Apr;27(3):422-430. doi: 10.1111/odi.13309. Epub 2020 Mar 24.
To compare the effectiveness of lasers and topical desensitising agent treatments for dentine hypersensitivity.
PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), EMBASE and ISI Web of Knowledge were electronically searched without restrictions. Study search, selection, data extraction and assessment of risk of bias were conducted independently by two reviewer authors. All analyses were performed using Review Manager 5.3 (Cochrane Collaboration).
This meta-analysis included 13 eligible studies that compared topical desensitising agents and Nd:YAG or diode laser. Four, six and three studies were considered to have low, moderate and high risks of bias, respectively. The follow-up period varied from immediate to 9 months. All comparisons except the 3-month Nd:YAG laser parallel group and 6-month diode laser group showed that the clinical efficacy of lasers for dentine hypersensitivity was not significantly different with topical desensitising agents.
We found low-quality evidence that was insufficient to draw any conclusions regarding the superiority of lasers or conventional topical desensitising agents in the treatment of DH. Further well-designed RCTs on this topic are needed to draw definitive conclusions.
比较激光和局部脱敏剂治疗牙本质过敏症的效果。
对 PubMed、Cochrane 中央对照试验注册库(CENTRAL)、EMBASE 和 ISI Web of Knowledge 进行了无限制的电子检索。两位评审作者独立进行了研究搜索、选择、数据提取和偏倚风险评估。所有分析均使用 Review Manager 5.3(Cochrane 协作网)进行。
这项荟萃分析纳入了 13 项比较局部脱敏剂和 Nd:YAG 或二极管激光的研究。分别有 4、6 和 3 项研究被认为存在低、中和高偏倚风险。随访时间从即刻到 9 个月不等。除了 3 个月 Nd:YAG 激光平行组和 6 个月二极管激光组外,所有比较均表明激光治疗牙本质过敏症的临床疗效与局部脱敏剂无显著差异。
我们发现证据质量低,不足以得出关于激光或传统局部脱敏剂在治疗 DH 方面具有优势的任何结论。需要进一步设计良好的 RCT 来得出明确的结论。