García 2017.

Study characteristics
Methods	Study type: RCT (split‐mouth design) Duration of trial: not mentioned in the study Duration of follow‐up: 2 months
Participants	Setting: Periodontal Pathology and Surgery Unit belonging to the Oral Surgery and Implantology Master Degree program of the University of Barcelona and a private clinic of the same area, Spain Inclusion criteria: patients diagnosed with dentine hypersensitivity in at least 2 teeth at different quadrants Exclusion criteria: any desensitizing treatment (current or last month); pregnancy; eating disorders (bulimia, etc.) or diet that cause erosion and/or tooth wear; orthodontic treatment; teeth whitening in the past 3 months; teeth with large fillings or reconstructions affecting the assessment area; teeth with fractures, cracks or untreated caries; non‐vital teeth or pulpal pathology; parafunction Total number: 30 patients (120 teeth) Age range: 19 to 67 years Sex (M/F): 9/21
Interventions	Group 1: (30 patients, n = 60 teeth): control group (placebo). Treatment of 2 teeth was simulated without activating the laser Group 2: (30 patients, n = 60 teeth): laser THOR LX2 (THOR Photomedicine Ltd, Chesham, UK) at a 5 mm distance, with oscillating movements, wavelength 660 nm, power 200 mW, continuous mode, illuminated treatment area 1.15 cm2, irradiance 173 mW/cm2, irradiation time 60 s, energy 12 Joules, fluence 10.4 J/cm2
Outcomes	Dentine hypersensitivity for tactile stimulation (touching the tooth neck with a sharp dental probe) and thermal stimulation (with an air jet from the syringe dental chair, isolating adjacent teeth with cotton rolls) was recorded before the laser treatment, immediate post‐treatment (after 2 minutes), 2 weeks, 1 month, and 2 months after treatment (VAS from 0 to 100)
Notes	Baseline characteristics: patients were treated with scaling and root planing and subsequently referred if diagnosed with dentine hypersensitivity Sample size calculation: not mentioned in the study. Following the baseline examination, each side was randomly allocated either to the treatment or the control side with a series of random numbers Source of funding: the authors state no conflict of interest Ethics approval: quote: "The institutional review board (Ethical Committee of Clinical Investigation, University of Barcelona Dental School) reviewed and approved the study protocol" Informed consent: quote: "All patients were informed of the nature and objectives of the study, and signed consent prior to inclusion in the study" Adverse events: quote: "There were no adverse effects of diode laser treatment and no complications"
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Low risk	Quote: "Following the baseline examination, each side was randomly allocated either to the treatment or the control side with a series of random numbers"
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Insufficient information provided
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	Low risk	Blinding of participants is likely adequate due to use of placebo laser
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	High risk	The outcome measurement is likely to be influenced by lack of blinding
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	Low risk	No missing outcome data from the result table during 2‐month follow‐up period
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	The study did not report included standard deviations for the estimated marginal means of VAS for tactile and thermal stimulation (Table 1)
Other bias	Low risk	No other sources of bias were identified Sample size calculation not mentioned in the study