Summary of findings 1. Laser compared to placebo/no treatment for patients with dentinal hypersensitivity tested via VAS with the value range from 0 to 10 (no pain to worst possible pain) in response to air blast stimuli.

Laser compared to placebo/no treatment for patients with dentinal hypersensitivity tested via VAS with the value range from 0 to 10 (no pain to worst possible pain) in response to air blast stimuli
Patient or population: patients with dentinal hypersensitivity Setting: dental clinic Intervention: laser Comparison: placebo/no treatment
Outcomes	Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI)		Number of teeth (studies)	Certainty of the evidence (GRADE)	Comments
	Risk with placebo/no treatment	Risk with laser
Changes in intensity of pain (VAS with the value range from 0 to 10 (no pain to worst possible pain)) when tested through air blast stimuli ‐ short term (0 to 24 hours) All types of laser	The mean changes in pain intensity ranged from 0.10 to 4.80	MD 2.24 lower (3.55 lower to 0.93 lower)	978 (13 RCTs)	⊕⊕⊝⊝ LOWa	Lasers may reduce pain intensity in the short term when compared to placebo/no treatment. Pain reduction was observed in the lasers group in the short term with a mean VAS score difference of 2.22 suggesting minimal clinical significance. The effective lasers in this category were Er,Cr:YSGG, diode (630 nm to 700 nm), and diode (850 nm to 980 nm)
Changes in intensity of pain (VAS with the value range from 0 to 10 (no pain to worst possible pain)) when tested through air blast stimuli ‐ medium term (24 hours to 2 months) All types of laser	The mean changes in pain intensity ranged from 0.10 to 5.18	MD 2.46 lower (3.57 lower to 1.35 lower)	1007 (11 RCTs)	⊕⊝⊝⊝ VERY LOWb,c	Lasers may reduce pain intensity in the medium term when compared to placebo/no treatment but the evidence is very uncertain. Pain reduction was observed in the lasers group in the medium term with a mean VAS score difference of 2.41 suggesting minimal clinical significance. The effective lasers in this category were Er,Cr:YSGG, diode (700 nm to 850 nm), and diode (850 nm to 980 nm)
Changes in intensity of pain (VAS with the value range from 0 to 10 (no pain to worst possible pain)) when tested through air blast stimuli ‐ long term (more than 2 months) All types of laser	The mean changes in pain intensity ranged from 0.30 to 4.73	MD 2.60 lower (4.47 lower to 0.73 lower)	564 (5 RCTs)	⊕⊝⊝⊝ VERY LOWc,d	Lasers may reduce pain intensity in the long term when compared to placebo/no treatment but the evidence is very uncertain. Pain reduction was observed in the lasers group in the long term with a mean VAS score difference of 2.60 suggesting minimal clinical significance. The effective lasers in this category were Er,Cr:YSGG and diode (850 nm to 980 nm)
Adverse events	No adverse event was noted in the experimental and control groups		954 (11 RCTs)	⊕⊕⊝⊝ LOWe	‐
Patient‐reported quality of life	Outcome not measured in any of the included studies
*The risk in the intervention group (and its 95% CI) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). CI: confidence interval; Er,Cr:YSGG: erbium,chromium:yttrium‐scandium‐gallium‐garnet; MD: mean difference; nm: nanometer; RCT: randomized controlled trial; VAS: visual analogue scale
GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High certainty: we are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect Moderate certainty: we are moderately confident in the effect estimate: the true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different Low certainty: our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: the true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect Very low certainty: we have very little confidence in the effect estimate: the true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect

^aDowngraded 2 levels for inconsistency: marked heterogeneity is noted among the studies (I² = 99%).
^bDowngraded 1 level for risk of bias: blinding of outcome assessors was not performed or unclear in studies that contribute significantly to the participants' pool. Blinding of participants was not performed in 1 of the parallel studies.
^cDowngraded 2 levels for inconsistency: marked heterogeneity is noted among the studies (I² = 98%).
^dDowngraded 1 level for imprecision: wide confidence interval.
^eDowngraded 1 level each for risk of bias and imprecision.