Summary of findings 2. 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 tactile 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 tactile 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 tactile stimuli ‐ short term (0 to 24 hours) All types of laser	The mean changes in pain intensity ranged from 0.10 to 3.17	MD 0.67 lower (1.31 lower to 0.03 lower)	506 (8 RCTs)	⊕⊕⊝⊝ LOWa,b	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 0.65 suggesting minimal clinical significance. The effective laser in this category was diode
Changes in intensity of pain (VAS with the value range from 0 to 10 (no pain to worst possible pain)) when tested through tactile stimuli ‐ medium term (24 hours to 2 months) All types of laser	The mean changes in pain intensity ranged from 0.30 to 3.60	MD 1.73 lower (3.17 lower to 0.30 lower)	591 (9 RCTs)	⊕⊝⊝⊝ VERY LOWa,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 1.14 suggesting minimal clinical significance. The effective lasers in this category were GaAlAs and diode
Changes in intensity of pain (VAS with the value range from 0 to 10 (no pain to worst possible pain)) when tested through tactile stimuli ‐ long term (more than 2 months) All types of laser	The mean changes in pain intensity ranged from 0.50 to 2.30	MD 3.52 lower (10.37 lower to 3.33 higher)	184 (2 RCTs)	⊕⊝⊝⊝ VERY LOWd,e,f	There was insufficient evidence of a difference in pain intensity for all types of lasers in the long term
Adverse events	No adverse event was noted in the experimental and control groups		386 (5 RCTs)	⊕⊕⊝⊝ LOWg	‐
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; GaAIAs: gallium‐aluminum‐arsenide; MD: mean difference; 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 1 level for risk of bias: studies with significant contribution to data analysis were rated as at unclear and high risk of bias for randomization and blinding of outcome assessors.
^bDowngraded 1 level for inconsistency: marked heterogeneity with I² = 92% and some studies crossing the threshold.
^cDowngraded 2 levels for inconsistency: marked heterogeneity with I² = 97% and some studies crossing the threshold.
^dDowngraded 1 level for risk of bias: the study with significant contribution to data analysis was rated as at unclear risk of bias for selection, detection, and attrition bias.
^eDowngraded 2 levels for inconsistency: marked heterogeneity with I² = 99%.
^fDowngraded 1 level for imprecision: wide confidence interval crossing the threshold.
^gDowngraded 1 level each for risk of bias and imprecision.