Assessing the efficacy of Laser pulpotomy versus conventional pulpotomy in primary teeth: A systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials

Purpose: This study systematically reviewed the clinical and radiographic outcomes of laser versus conventional pulpotomy in primary teeth. It also compared the success and effectiveness of different lasers to enhance the understanding and use of laser pulpotomy as an alternative treatment. Methodology: An electronic search was carried out in PubMed and Cochrane from 1st January 1999 to 31st December 2023. The published articles in the English language were searched using MeSH terms and text words. Only randomized controlled trials with a sample size of more than 10 and follow-ups over 6 months were included. Meta-analysis and forest plots were evaluated by utilizing Review Manager 5.4 software. Two reviewers assessed the risk of bias using the RoB 2 tool and discrepancies were resolved by the third reviewer. The success rates were combined using a random effects model to determine clinical and radiographic outcomes. We used risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals (CI) as the primary effect measures and set the significance level at 0.05. Results: Only 18 studies met the inclusion criteria after an electronic search. Among them, 13 studies evaluated the clinical and radiographic outcomes of laser with formocresol pulpotomy, 2 studies compared with ferric sulfate pulpotomy, and the remaining studies with Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) pulpotomy. The various studies showed different levels of bias. There was no significant difference in the clinical success rate (p = 0.47; RR: 1.01; 95% CI 0.98-1.04; I2 = 0%; p = 0.70) and radiographic success rate (p = 0.94; RR: 1.00; 95% CI 0.91-1.09; I2 = 64%; p = 0.001) between laser pulpotomy and formocresol. Similarly, there was no significant difference between laser pulpotomy and ferric sulfate or MTA pulpotomy. Conclusion: Diode laser and LLLT can be considered as alternative pulpotomy agents to formocresol in primary teeth. However, high-quality trials are needed to confirm the accuracy and reliability of these findings.