Clinical efficacy of diode laser for pulpotomy in primary teeth: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.2340/aos.v84.43804Keywords:
diode laser, formocresol, pulpotomy, meta-analysis, randomized controlled trialsAbstract
Objective: To systematically evaluate the efficacy of diode laser for pulpotomy in primary teeth using meta-analysis.
Methods: Electronic databases (PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, and Embase) were systematically searched to include randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the efficacy of diode laser pulpotomy in primary teeth, with the control group receiving conventional treatment without diode laser. This meta-analysis was based on a systematic literature search. Meta-analyses were conducted based on different follow-up times and control groups to assess the clinical and radiographic success rates of diode laser pulpotomy.
Results: A total of 17 RCTs met the inclusion criteria, involving 1,018 primary teeth. Meta-analysis results based on different follow-up times (≤ 3 months, 6 months, 9 months, ≥12 months) showed similar clinical success rates (total: relative risk [RR], 1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.99–1.03; I2 = 0%) and radiographic success rates (total: RR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.97–1.02; I2 = 0%) between diode laser pulpotomy and conventional treatment. Meta-analysis based on different control groups (formocresol-zinc oxide eugenol [FC-ZOE], ferric sulfate-zinc oxide eugenol [FS-ZOE], mineral trioxide aggregate-zinc oxide eugenol [MTA-ZOE], simvastatin gel-resin modified glass ionomer cement [SG-REGIC]) showed similar clinical success rates between diode laser pulpotomy and FC-ZOE (RR: 1.00; 95% CI: 0.98–1.02), MTA-ZOE (RR: 1.01; 95% CI: 0.94–1.09), and SG-REGIC (RR: 0.99; 95% CI: 0.83–1.17), but it was more likely to achieve clinical success compared to FS-ZOE (RR: 1.04; 95% CI: 1.01–1.07). In addition, diode laser pulpotomy showed similar radiographic success rates with different control groups.
Conclusion: Diode laser can be considered as an alternative treatment method to current conventional pulpotomy. However, further high-quality trials are needed to confirm the accuracy and reliability of these findings.
Downloads
References
Kazeminia M, Abdi A, Shohaimi S, Jalali R, Vaisi-Raygani A, Salari N, et al. Dental caries in primary and permanent teeth in children’s worldwide, 1995 to 2019: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Head Face Med. 2020;16(1):22. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13005-020-00237-z DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13005-020-00237-z
Nematollahi H, Sahebnasagh M, Parisay I. Comparison of electrosurgical pulpotomy with zinc oxide eugenol or zinc polycarboxylate cements sub-base. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2011;36(2):133–7. https://doi.org/10.17796/jcpd.36.2.3527457504x6k880 DOI: https://doi.org/10.17796/jcpd.36.2.3527457504x6k880
King SR, McWhorter AG, Seale NS. Concentration of formocresol used by pediatric dentists in primary tooth pulpotomy. Pediatr Dent. 2002;24(2):157–9.
de Alencar Filho AV, Dos Santos Junior VE, da Silva Calixto M, Santos N, Heimer MV, Rosenblatt A. Evaluation of the genotoxic effects of formocresol application in vital pulp therapy of primary teeth: a clinical study and meta-analysis. Clin Oral Investig. 2018;22(7):2553–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-018-2352-y DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-018-2352-y
Yamasaki M, Nakamura H, Kameyama Y. Irritating effect of formocresol after pulpectomy in vivo. Int Endod J. 1994;27(5):245–51. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2591.1994.tb00263.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2591.1994.tb00263.x
Aeinehchi M, Eslami B, Ghanbariha M, Saffar AS. Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) and calcium hydroxide as pulp-capping agents in human teeth: a preliminary report. Int Endod J. 2003;36(3):225–31. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2591.2003.00652.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2591.2003.00652.x
Naved N, Umer F, Khowaja AR. Cost-effectiveness analysis of regenerative endodontics versus MTA apexification. JDR Clin Trans Res. 2024;9(3):231–8. https://doi.org/10.1177/23800844231191515 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/23800844231191515
Nematollahi H, Sarraf Shirazi A, Mehrabkhani M, Sabbagh S. Clinical and radiographic outcomes of laser pulpotomy in vital primary teeth: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent. 2018;19(4):205–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40368-018-0358-4 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40368-018-0358-4
Ansari G, Safi Aghdam H, Taheri P, Ghazizadeh Ahsaie M. Laser pulpotomy-an effective alternative to conventional techniques – a systematic review of literature and meta-analysis. Lasers Med Sci. 2018;33(8):1621–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10103-018-2588-4 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10103-018-2588-4
Joshi P, Baliga S, Rathi N, Thosar N, Dharmadhikari P, Chandak P. A comparative evaluation between formocresol and diode laser assisted pulpotomy in primary molars – an in vivo study. Eur J Pharm Med Res. 2017;4:569–75.
Yavagal CM, Lal A, Chavan Patil VV, Yavagal PC, Neelakantappa KK, Hariharan M. Efficacy of laser photobiomodulation pulpotomy in human primary teeth: a randomized controlled trial. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent. 2021;39(4):436–41. https://doi.org/10.4103/jisppd.jisppd_150_21 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/jisppd.jisppd_150_21
Ansari G, Chitsazan A, Fekrazad R, Javadi F. Clinical and radiographic evaluation of diode laser pulpotomy on human primary teeth. Laser Ther. 2018;27(3):187–92. https://doi.org/10.5978/islsm.27_18-OR-17 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5978/islsm.27_18-OR-17
Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
Higgins J, Altman DG. Chapter 8: assessing risk of biasin included studies. In: Higgins J, Green S, editors Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.0 [Internet]. [cited 2010 Jul 20]. Available from: http://www.cochrane-handbook.org
Saltzman B, Sigal M, Clokie C, Rukavina J, Titley K, Kulkarni GV. Assessment of a novel alternative to conventional formocresol-zinc oxide eugenol pulpotomy for the treatment of pulpally involved human primary teeth: diode laser-mineral trioxide aggregate pulpotomy. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2005;15(6):437–47. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-263X.2005.00670.x DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-263X.2005.00670.x
Golpayegani MV, Ansari G, Tadayon N, Shams S, Mir M. Low-level laser therapy for pulpotomy treatment of primary molars. Tehran Univ Med J. 2009;6:168–74.
Durmus B, Tanboga I. In vivo evaluation of the treatment outcome of pulpotomy in primary molars using diode laser, formocresol, and ferric sulphate. Photomed Laser Surg. 2014;32(5):289–95. https://doi.org/10.1089/pho.2013.3628 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1089/pho.2013.3628
Yadav P, Indushekar K, Saraf B, Sheoran N, Sardana D. Comparative evaluation of Ferric Sulfate, Electrosurgical and Diode Laser on human primary molars pulpotomy: an ‘in-vivo’ study. Laser Ther. 2014;23(1):41–7. https://doi.org/10.5978/islsm.14-OR-05 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5978/islsm.14-OR-05
Fernandes AP, Lourenço Neto N, Teixeira Marques NC, Silveira Moretti AB, Sakai VT, Cruvinel Silva T, et al. Clinical and radiographic outcomes of the use of low-level laser therapy in vital pulp of primary teeth. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2015;25(2):144–50. https://doi.org/10.1111/ipd.12115 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/ipd.12115
Niranjani K, Prasad MG, Vasa AA, Divya G, Thakur MS, Saujanya K. Clinical evaluation of success of primary teeth pulpotomy using mineral trioxide aggregate(®), laser and biodentine(TM) – an in vivo study. J Clin Diagn Res. 2015;9(4):ZC35–7. https://doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2015/13153.5823 DOI: https://doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2015/13153.5823
Gupta G, Rana V, Srivastava N, Chandna P. Laser pulpotomy – an effective alternative to conventional techniques: a 12 months clinicoradiographic study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2015;8(1):18–21. https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1277 DOI: https://doi.org/10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1277
Uloopi KS, Vinay C, Ratnaditya A, Gopal AS, Mrudula KJ, Rao RC. Clinical evaluation of low level diode laser application for primary teeth pulpotomy. J Clin Diagn Res. 2016;10(1):ZC67–70. https://doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2016/13218.7140 DOI: https://doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2016/13218.7140
Ansari G, Morovati SP, Asgary S. Evaluation of four pulpotomy techniques in primary molars: a randomized controlled trial. Iran Endod J. 2018;13(1):7–12.
Pei SL, Shih WY, Liu JF. Outcome comparison between diode laser pulpotomy and formocresol pulpotomy on human primary molars. J Dent Sci. 2020;15(2):163–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jds.2020.03.005 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jds.2020.03.005
Alamoudi N, Nadhreen A, Sabbagh H, El Meligy O, Al Tuwirqi A, Elkhodary H. Clinical and radiographic success of low-level laser therapy compared with formocresol pulpotomy treatment in primary molars. Pediatr Dent. 2020;42(5):359–66.
Satyarth S, Alkhamis AM, Almunahi HF, Abdulaziz Alsuhaymi MO, Vadde HB, Senapathi SN, et al. Comparative evaluation of mineral trioxide aggregate pulpotomy and laser-assisted mineral trioxide aggregate pulpotomy: an original research article. J Microsc Ultrastruct. 2021;9(1):7–11. https://doi.org/10.4103/JMAU.JMAU_54_19 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/JMAU.JMAU_54_19
Aripirala M, Bansal K, Mathur VP, Tewari N, Gupta P, Logani A. Comparative evaluation of diode laser and simvastatin gel in pulpotomy of primary molars: a randomized clinical trial. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent. 2021;39(3):303–9. https://doi.org/10.4103/jisppd.jisppd_60_21 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/jisppd.jisppd_60_21
Ebrahimi M, Changiz S, Makarem A, Ahrari F. Clinical and radiographic effectiveness of mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) partial pulpotomy with low power or high power diode laser irradiation in deciduous molars: a randomized clinical trial. Lasers Med Sci. 2022;37(4):2293–303. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10103-022-03503-5 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10103-022-03503-5
Movaniya PN, Desai NN, Makwana TR, Matariya RG, Makwana KG, Patel HB, et al. Effectiveness of diode laser in intraoral soft tissue surgeries – an evaluative study. Ann Maxillofac Surg. 2023;13(2):167–72. https://doi.org/10.4103/ams.ams_140_23 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4103/ams.ams_140_23
Mareddy A, Mallikarjun SB, Shetty PV, Rao VVN, Chandru TP. Histological evaluation of diode laser pulpotomy in dogs. J Oral Laser Appl. 2010;10:7–16.
Cannon M, Wagner C, Thobaben JZ, Jurado R, Solt D. Early response of mechanically exposed dental pulps of swine to antibacterial-hemostatic agents or diode laser irradiation. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2011;35(3):271–6. https://doi.org/10.17796/jcpd.35.3.73621w8l447r3887 DOI: https://doi.org/10.17796/jcpd.35.3.73621w8l447r3887
Yamakawa S, Niwa T, Karakida T, Kobayashi K, Yamamoto R, Chiba R, et al. Effects of Er:YAG and diode laser irradiation on dental pulp cells and tissues. Int J Mol Sci. 2018;19(8):2429. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms19082429 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms19082429
Sivadas S, Rao A, Natarajan S, Shenoy R, Srikrishna SB. Pulpal response to ferric sulfate and diode laser when used as pulpotomy agent: an in vivo study. J Clin Diagn Res. 2017;11(6):ZC87–91. https://doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2017/25180.10121 DOI: https://doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2017/25180.10121
Additional Files
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Yue Gao, Mina Hu, Jian Xu
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Acta Odontologica Scandinavica publishes high quality original research papers as well as critical reviews relevant on diseases of the oral cavity, their treatment, epidemiology and associated biomaterials and their development.
