Search PubMed⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 42742661

Effectiveness of high-power laser use in the removal of esthetic restorations: a systematic review.

Daniele das Graças Silva·Nayra Kamylle Araujo Fernandes Carvalho·Diêgo de Oliveira Camargos·Arthur Henrique Vieira de Almeida·Valder Ferreira da Silva Filho·Paula Cristina Pelli Paiva·Olga Dumont Flecha·Brender Leonan-Silva
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

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.

Explore related subjects

HumansLasers, Solid-StateDental Restoration, PermanentEsthetics, DentalLasers, GasLaser TherapyComposite resinsDental restoration repairLaser therapyTreatment outcomeJournal ArticleSystematic ReviewReview

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Daniele das Graças Silva, Nayra Kamylle Araujo Fernandes Carvalho, Diêgo de Oliveira Camargos, Arthur Henrique Vieira de Almeida, Valder Ferreira da Silva Filho, Paula Cristina Pelli Paiva, Olga Dumont Flecha, Brender Leonan-Silva. 2026-09-15. Effectiveness of high-power laser use in the removal of esthetic restorations: a systematic review.. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10103-026-05037-6

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

Discover connections

Dental Restoration, Permanent subjectHumans subjectJournal Article subjectJournal Article; Systematic Review; Review resourceSystematic reviews study

Connections use source metadata and explicit phrase matches, not verified experimental comparisons.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2026

Clinical performance evaluation of single-shade versus multi-shade composite resins in non-carious cervical lesions: a 36-month randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Composite resins are widely used as the material of choice for definitive restorations due to their ability to integrate functional and aesthetic aspects in dental rehabilitation. Recently, one-shade composite resins have been introduced to simplify the clinical workflow. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to compare the clinical performance of a "chameleon effect" composite resin with that of a multi-shade composite resin in non-carious cervical lesions after 36 months of follow-up. METHODS: This study was a randomized, controlled, double-blind clinical trial with an equivalence design using a split-mouth approach. The sample consisted of 60 patients presenting at least two non-carious cervical lesions, totaling 120 restorations. Restorations were performed using two materials from the same commercial brand: Vittra Unique (one-shade group) and Vittra APS (multi-shade group). The clinical performance of the restorations was longitudinally evaluated according to the FDI criteria. Survival analysis was performed using Kaplan-Meier curves and the log-rank test, while other clinical parameters were compared using the chi-square test (α = 0.05). RESULTS: At baseline, no statistically significant differences were observed between the groups regarding the evaluated biological, functional, and aesthetic parameters (p > 0.05). Both materials demonstrated clinically acceptable performance according to the FDI criteria, with no significant differences between them. CONCLUSIONS: After 36 months, no significant differences were observed between the one-shade and the multi-shade composite resins in the restoration of non-carious cervical lesions. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: This 36-month randomized clinical trial demonstrates that single-shade composite resins achieve structural durability and aesthetic integration equivalent to traditional multi-shade layering when restoring non-carious cervical lesions. This evidence validates a simplified, single-shade restorative workflow, significantly reducing chairside time and operator-dependent variables without compromising the clinical longevity.

Humans↗
PubMed2026

Influence of endodontic access on the fracture resistance, retention and microleakage of full-coverage restorations in vitro: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Endodontic access through retained full-coverage restorations (FCRs) is a preferred option for patients because of its high cost-effectiveness. However, the clinical performance of FCRs after repaired access cavity remains insufficiently characterized. This systematic review investigates the effects of endodontic access cavity preparation through retained FCRs on fracture resistance, retention, and microleakage based on in vitro studies. METHODS: A comprehensive search was performed in PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus databases. Studies investigating the influence of endodontic access on the fracture resistance, retention, and microleakage of FCRs were included. Two independent reviewers conducted study selection, data extraction, and risk-of-bias assessment using the QUIN tool. Meta-analysis was employed to estimate fracture resistance and retention, with sensitivity analysis and subgroup evaluation also performed. Microleakage was summarized qualitatively. RESULTS: Twentythree studies were included: fracture resistance (n = 15), retention (n = 5), and microleakage (n = 3). Endodontic access significantly reduced fracture resistance for zirconia (p = 0.0002) and lithium disilicate (LD) restorations (p = 0.007), but not for resin-matrix ceramic (RMC) restorations (p = 0.25). Abutment tooth type contributed to heterogeneity within the LD and RMC subgroups. Retention was significantly reduced when access cavities were left unrepaired (p = 0.03), whereas appropriate repair protocols restored or enhanced retention relative to baseline. Accelerated aging increased microleakage in retained FCRs. Surface pretreatments and flowable resin liners tended to reduce microleakage, but findings were inconsistent. CONCLUSIONS: Endodontic access significantly reduces fracture resistance of zirconia and LD FCRs, whereas RMC restorations show no significant change. Appropriate repair protocols can restore or improve retention, potentially exceeding original values. Limited evidence suggests that effective sealing is achievable with appropriate materials. However, well-designed and in-vivo researches are needed to provide more detailed clinical guidance. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: When performing endodontic access through retained FCRs, reduced fracture resistance must be carefully considered for zirconia and LD restorations, while RMC restorations may be exempt from this concern. Loss of retention with access can be restored after repair. Surface pretreatment and flowable resin liners help decrease microleakage.

Humans↗
PubMed2026

Marginal fit and five-year outcomes of posterior monolithic zirconia restorations: A randomized paired and observational clinical study.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the marginal fit and five-year clinical performance of posterior 5 mol% yttria-partially stabilized zirconia restorations. A randomized paired comparison with lithium disilicate crowns was performed for marginal fit. METHODS: A total of 65 posterior restorations were placed in 38 patients, including 32 zirconia crowns, 17 lithium disilicate crowns, and 16 zirconia partial coverage restorations. In the randomized paired comparison, 17 patients received one lithium disilicate crown and one zirconia crown. Additional zirconia crowns (n=15) and zirconia partial coverage restorations (n=16) were included in a prospective observational cohort. The primary outcome was marginal fit within the randomized cohort. Marginal and internal fit were assessed using the replica technique. Marginal and internal gap values were compared using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test; clinical outcomes were analyzed descriptively, and Kaplan-Meier estimates were calculated for survival and complication-free survival. Clinical performance was assessed using CDA criteria, periodontal parameters, complication recording, and patient-reported outcomes. Clinical examinations were performed at baseline and at 12, 24, 36, 48, and 60 months. RESULTS: Mean marginal gap values at the crown margin were 46 ±33 µm for lithium disilicate crowns and 50 ±32 µm for zirconia crowns (p>0.05). No restoration required replacement, resulting in 100% restoration survival after a median follow-up of 60 months (range: 57-64 months). Most complications were biological or functional, including endodontic, periodontal, occlusal, and proximal-contact-related events. One zirconia partial coverage restoration exhibited a small ceramic fracture managed by polishing. The Kaplan-Meier probability of complication-free survival was 76.4% for zirconia crowns, 66.7% for lithium disilicate crowns, and 87.5% for zirconia partial coverage restorations. CONCLUSIONS: In the randomized paired comparison, 5 mol% yttria-partially stabilized zirconia crowns showed marginal gap values similar to lithium disilicate crowns. All restorations remained in situ during the observation period. Lower complication-free survival was mainly related to biological and functional events and should be interpreted separately from restoration survival. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Clinical evidence for posterior 5 mol% yttria-partially stabilized zirconia restorations remains limited. This study provides mid-term clinical data on crowns and partial coverage restorations. In the randomized full-crown comparison, marginal fit was similar to that of lithium disilicate crowns, supporting the clinical consideration of monolithic zirconia restorations for posterior teeth.

Humans↗