Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Medicine logoLink to Medicine
. 2022 Oct 7;101(40):e30990. doi: 10.1097/MD.0000000000030990

Effect of erbium family laser etching on shear bond strength of enamel surfaces: A meta-analysis-PRISMA

Tao Jiang a, Qi Gong a, Ying Liu a, Pan-Pan Zhang a, Li Zhang a,*
PMCID: PMC9542907  PMID: 36221405

Background:

Recently, laser etching has appealed to people’s attention. It is meaningful to compare the effect of erbium-doped yttrium-aluminum-garnet (Er:YAG) and erbium-chromium; yttrium-scandium-gallium-garnet (Er,Cr:YSSG) laser etching parameters with acid etching on bond strength of enamel surfaces. As far as we know, there still remains no related meta-analysis. To evaluate the efficacy of Er:YAG and Er,Cr:YSSG lasers etching on shear bond strength (SBS) of brackets bonded to enamel. The meta-analysis was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses, conducted with literature search.

Methods:

Twelve relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included.

Results:

The pooled analysis of SBS showed that there were no significant differences between erbium family lasers and acid etching. In the mass, we noticed they did not achieve statistical significance in the lasers etching and acid etching. However, pooled analysis of 5 studies showed the SBS bonding to enamel was lower in Er,Cr:YAG laser group compared with acid group. As a whole, there were statistical significance between erbium lasers groups and acid etching group in adhesive remnant index (ARI) aspects, which less adhesives remained can reduce damage to enamel. With regard to the rate of teeth with ARI score ≤2, the results in Er:YAG laser etching group were obviously higher than acid etching group.

Conclusion:

Our data indicated that erbium lasers may be considered bonding of brackets to enamel instead of acid etching bonding to enamel.

Keywords: Cr:YSSG, enamel, Er, Er:YAG, meta-analysis, SBS

1. Introduction

Proper bonding strength can not only increase the success rate but also reduce the damage to enamel when they were separated. The ideal bonding in orthodontic practice depends on the procedures used in the process of bonding. Therefore, continuous improvement in procedures of bonding can decrease cost, reduce the failure and minimize damage to enamel in orthodontic practice.[1] The fundamentals of bonding are acid etching of enamel, followed by polymerization of adhesive resin, which is penetrated into the micro porosity created in the etched enamel areas.[2,3] Of the process, it is vital to obtain excellent shear bond strength (SBS) in the successful treatment.

So far, several different procedures for bonding to enamel have been developed, which are extended acid etching,[4,5] micro-abrasion for acid etching,[6,7] air abrading,[8] proposed adhesion promoters[9,10] and self-etching primers.[3,11–13] Among these procedures, acid etching is a conventional method to enamel conditioning.[14–17] However, using acid etching technique, the enamel surface becomes prone to acid attack if it is not completely filled with adhesive.[18,19] Besides, acid etching technique increases the caries susceptibility of the enamel, increases enamel demineralization[1,20,21] and results in dissolution of the enamel subsurface.[22,23]

In the past several decades, many studies have focused on finding alternative methods to acid etching technique which is less damage for teeth structure and has optimum SBS.[14,24–26] Recently, laser etching has appealed to people’s attention. Laser etching is not only painless but also no vibration or heat. Among the various laser types used in dentistry, the erbium laser is the most recommended. Erbium family lasers including erbium-doped: yttrium-aluminum-garnet (Er:YAG) and erbium-chromium; yttrium-scandium-gallium-garnet (Er,Cr:YSSG) with two different wavelengths have been widely used for enamel surface conditioning in adhesive procedures.[27–32] The Er:YAG laser emits a wavelength of 2.94 μm and Er,Cr:YSSG laser emits a wavelength of 2.78 μm, which coincide with the maximum absorption in water and hydroxyapatite. For this reason, they can be used as an etching adhesive in the treatment of teeth enamel.

At present, more and more researches of Er:YAG and Er,Cr:YSSG etching on SBS of enamel surfaces is emerging. It is meaningful to compare the effect of Er:YAG and Er,Cr:YSSG laser etching parameters with acid etching on bond strength of enamel surfaces. As far as we know, there still remains no related meta-analysis. Hence, we performed this meta-analysis and analyzed SBS values and adhesive remnant index (ARI) score simultaneously to provide a guideline for clinical dental application safety and efficiency of Er:YAG laser and Er,Cr:YSSG laser treatment to gain an optimal response.

2. Materials and Methods

The present meta-analysis was conducted according to the guidelines of the Cochrane Collaboration[33] and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses.[34] This study did not involve human or animal specimens. Therefore, ethical approval was not necessary.

2.1. Search strategy

The following databases were searched from their earliest records until July 2019: Pubmed, EBSCO, Cochrane library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang databases. To minimize the potential reviewer bias, the study selection process was performed by two reviewers independently in two phases. The databases were searched using the following search strategy: (Er) AND (dentin odds ratio [OR] dentin OR dentinal OR enamel OR “dental enamel” OR “tooth enamel” OR “the enamel”) AND (“adhesive strength” OR “bond strength” OR “bonding strength” OR “adhesion strength”).

2.2. Inclusion and exclusion criteria

Studies were considered suitable for inclusion in the meta-analysis according to the following criteria (A): A1. The studies were randomized controlled trials (RCT); A2. The studies were limited to human subjects; A3. Studies about SBS of enamel are evaluated; A4. Studies comparing Er:YAG laser or Er,Cr:YSSG laser with phosphoric acid; A5. The range of laser parameters is 1~1.5 W, 100~120 mJ, 10~20 Hz, wavelength 2.94 μm for Er:YAG laser and 1~1.5 W, wavelength 2.78 μm for Er,Cr:YSSG laser.

The exclusion criteria were as following (B): B1. The repeated published literature. B2. Data of SBS values are not reported as mean ± SD. B3. Studies are of insufficient information of laser devices and energy settings. B4. No power description of the parameters. B5. Studies did not contain SBS or ARI on enamel surfaces. B6.The subjects were not human teeth.

2.3. Data extraction and outcome measurements

Data was collected by two authors respectively. The extracted data included: first author, year of publication, sample size (number of teeth), study design, inclusion criteria, laser type, laser parameters, SBS values, ARI scores, study type.

2.4. Quality assessment

The quality of all selected studies was assessed via the modified Jadad scale.[35] Two evaluators completed this task independently. If there was any disagreement, they would consult with each other to reach an agreement. The modified Jadad scale evaluated the included studies from 4 aspects as follows: random, allocation, blind and drop-out. As a whole, score 1~3 were classified as low-quality literature and 4~7 were classified as high-quality literature.

2.5. Statistical analyses

SBS was tested by a chisel edge, installed on the crosshead of universal testing. ARI scores were determined to evaluate amount of adhesive residue in the site of debonding, which shows that less residue and less damage to enamel. The scoring was based on the criteria established by Artun and Bergland.[36] In the meta-analysis, we calculated the proportion of teeth with ARI score 0~2 which means that part of an adhesive is retained or on the enamel.

SBS bonded to enamel is continuous variables. All the SBS values were calculated as standardized mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence interval (CI). The rate of ARI data belongs to a binary variable and the index of factor is the odds ratio (OR). When heterogeneity is not obvious (P > .1, I2 ≤ 50%), we select a fixed effect model.[37] On the contrary (P ≤ .1, I2 > 50%), we select a random effect model.[38] We also carried out a subgroup analysis according to the laser type, Er:YAG laser group and Er,Cr:YSSG laser group. Funnel plots[39] and Egger test[40] were performed to evaluate the publication bias. When the results are P < .05, the difference is statistically significant. Both of them used the STATA software version 15.0 for meta-analysis.

3. Results

3.1. Study identification and selection

The flowchart of the screening process for included studies in the meta-analysis is shown in Figure 1. We identified 334 potentially relevant studies through electronic search and manual search. 296 Studies were excluded on the basis of title as well as an abstract evaluation, and 38 studies were obtained by the full text of potentially appropriate articles reviewed. Among the 38 studies, 26 studies are excluded according to parameters and blank control type and finally 12 studies were included in the meta-analysis consisting of a number of teeth (Table 1).

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Open in a new tab

Flowchart of studies included in meta-analysis.

Table 1.

Characteristics of the included studies.

First author (yr of publication) Study design Number of teeth Inclusion criteria Intervention Laser type ERL parameters
M.H. Hosseini[23] RCT 15 human premolars Human subjects; shear bond strength of enamel; take phosphoric acid as control. Test: laser Control: 37% phosphoric acid Er:YAG Wavelength 2.94 μm, frequency 10 Hz, output power of 1 W, energy of 100 mJ.
Cahide Aglarci[1] RCT 17 human premolars Human subjects; shear bond strength of enamel; take phosphoric acid as control. Test: laser Control: 37% phosphoric acid Er:YAG Wavelength 2.94 μm, frequency 10 Hz, output power of 1.2 W, energy of 120 mJ.
R Nalçaci[3] Not RCT 16 human premolars Human subjects; shear bond strength of enamel; take phosphoric acid as control. Test: laser Control: 37% phosphoric acid Er:YAG Wavelength 2.94 μm, frequency 10 Hz, output power of 1.2 W, energy of 120 mJ.
Hilal Yilanci[18] RCT 20 premolar teeth RCT; human subjects; shear bond strength of enamel; take phosphoric acid as control. Test: laser Control: 37% phosphoric acid Er:YAG Wavelength 2.94 μm, frequency 10 Hz, output power of 1 W, energy of 100 mJ.
Radwa A. Sallam[14] RCT 20 human premolars RCT; human subjects; shear bond strength of enamel; take phosphoric acid as control. Test: laser Control: 37% phosphoric acid Er:YAG Wavelength 2.94 μm, frequency 15 Hz, output power of 1.5 W, energy of 100 mJ.
Serkan Sag˘ir[41] RCT 12 premolars RCT; human subjects; shear bond strength of enamel; take phosphoric acid as control. Test: laser Control: 37% phosphoric acid Er:YAG Wavelength 2.94 μm, frequency 10 Hz, output power of 1.2 W, energy of 120 mJ. 100 μs. MSP.
Shiva Alavi[15] RCT 15 non-carious human premolars RCT; human subjects; shear bond strength of enamel; take phosphoric acid as control. Test: laser Control: 37% phosphoric acid Er:YAG Wavelength 2.94 μm, frequency 20 Hz, energy of 100 mJ.
S. Dilip[44] RCT 15 premolars RCT; human subjects; shear bond strength of enamel; take phosphoric acid as control. Test: laser Control: 37% phosphoric acid Er,Cr:YSSG Wavelength 2.78 μm, 1W 10 s.
Emine Göncü Başaran[43] RCT 10 maxillary central incisors RCT; human subjects; shear bond strength of enamel; take phosphoric acid as control. Test: laser Control: 38% phosphoric acid Er,Cr:YSSG Wavelength 2.78 μm, 1 W
Törün Özer[42] RCT 15 molars RCT; human subjects; shear bond strength of enamel; take phosphoric acid as control. Test: laser Control: 37% phosphoric acid Er,Cr:YSSG Wavelength 2.78 μm, 1.5 W
Serdar Usümez RCT 20 premolars RCT; human subjects; shear bond strength of enamel; take phosphoric acid as control. Test: laser Control: 37% phosphoric acid Er,Cr:YSSG Wavelength 2.78 μm, 1 W
Ildem Ustunkol[45] RCT 15 sound human third molars RCT; human subjects; shearbond strength of enamel; take phosphoric acid as control. Test: laser Control: 35% phosphoric acid Er,Cr:YSSG Wavelength 2.78 μm, 1.25W, 20Hz, a pulse duration of 140 μs
Open in a new tab

Er,Cr:YSSG = erbium-chromium; yttrium-scandium-gallium-garnet, Er:YAG = erbium-doped yttrium-aluminum-garnet, RCT = randomized controlled trial.

3.2. Quality assessment

In this meta-analysis, eleven studies considered to be high quality with Jadad score ≥4,[35] and 1 study was considered to be low quality with Jadad score <4 so that it (Table 2).

Table 2.

Quality evaluation of the included trials.

Author Time Random Allocation Blind Drop-out Jadad score
M.H. Hosseini 2012 Randomization Describe No description No drop-out 5
Cahide Aglarci 2016 Randomization No description No description No drop-out 4
R Nalçaci 2017 No description No description No description No drop-out 1
Hilal Yilanci 2017 Randomization No description No description No drop-out 5
Radwa A. Sallam 2018 Randomization Describe Describe No drop-out 7
Serkan Sag˘ir 2013 Randomization Describe Describe No drop-out 6
Shiva Alavi 2013 Randomization No description Describe No drop-out 6
S. Dilip 2018 Randomization No description No description No drop-out 5
Emine Göncü Başaran 2009 Randomization No description No description No drop-out 5
Törün Özer 2006 Randomization No description No description No drop-out 5
Serdar Usümez 2002 Randomization No description No description No drop-out 5
Ildem Ustunkol 2003 Randomization Describe No description No drop-out 6
Open in a new tab

3.3. Meta-analysis of SBS

Erbium family lasers showed similar SBS to acid etching (SMD = −0.52, 95% CI range: −1.11–0.06, P > .05) via based on 12 studies all of the above (Fig. 2). For the pooled analysis of SBS of 7 studies, there was no significant difference between Er:YAG laser group and acid etching group on enamel (SMD = 0.10, 95% CI range: −0.46–0.67, P > .05).[1,3,14,15,18,23,41] For Er,Cr:YAG laser, pooled analysis of 5 studies[21,42–45] showed that the SBS bonding to enamel was lower in Er,Cr:YAG laser group compared with acid group(SMD = −1.48, 95% CI range: −2.44 to −0.52, P < .05). There were some evidence (I2 = 86.0%) of heterogeneity. Random effect model was used for the meta-analysis of SBS values.

Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Open in a new tab

Forest plot for SBS for Er:YAG/Er,Cr:YSSG laser compared to acid etching. Er,Cr:YSSG = erbium-chromium; yttrium-scandium-gallium-garnet, Er:YAG = erbium-doped yttrium-aluminum-garnet, SBS = shear bond strength.

3.4. Meta-analysis of ARI scores

Overall, the rate of teeth with ARI score ≤2 in the erbium family lasers was higher than that in the acid etching group (OR = 6.20, 95% CI range: 2.62–14.67, P < .05, 93.14% vs 68.63%) (Fig. 3), which indicated that less adhesives remain on the enamel surfaces in the laser irradiated groups and reduce enamel loss during cleaning after the debonding procedure. ARI scores are used to evaluate residual adhesive conditions on enamel surfaces after laser treatment. It is found that the rate of teeth with ARI score ≤2 in Er:YAG laser etching group was obviously higher than phosphoric acid etching group[1,15,18,41] of (OR = 10.21, 95% CI range: 2.76–37.85, P < .05, 96.77% vs 69.35%), showed that Er:YAG laser was better than acid etching for cleaning teeth after debonding. Similarly, the rate of teeth with ARI score ≤2 in Er,Cr:YSSG laser was also higher than in the acid group on enamel etching (OR = 3.70, 95% CI range: 1.15–11.88, P < .05, 87.5% vs 67.5%) based on 3 studies,[42–44] indicated that less adhesive left on the enamel surface. There were no significant heterogeneity (I2 = 31.8%), we choose a fixed effect model to calculate OR and 95% CI.

Figure 3.

Figure 3.

Open in a new tab

Forest plot for ARI for Er:YAG/Er,Cr:YSSG laser compared to acid etching. ARI = adhesive remnant index, Er,Cr:YSSG = erbium-chromium; yttrium-scandium-gallium-garnet, Er:YAG = erbium-doped yttrium-aluminum-garnet.

3.5. Publication bias

The results of Egger’s linear regression tests (SBS: P = .087; ARI: P = .463) showed that there was no publication bias among the included studies.

4. Discussion

Up to now, there are a good number of studies assessing the erbium lasers etching on enamel by SBS values and ARI score index. However, the data have not been systematically assessed. To the best of our knowledge, this meta-analysis is the first systematic evaluation of the efficiency of Er:YAG and Er,Cr:YSSG lasers for which used SBS of orthodontic brackets bonded to enamel surfaces.

In this meta-analysis, we researched that the SBS of enamel surfaces did not report a significant difference between Er:YAG laser and acid group, suggesting that there was no evidence of the superior effectiveness of Er:YAG laser via comparing to acid. Compared to the acid group, SBS bonding to enamel in Er,Cr:YSSG laser group was decreased. Overall, the SBS of erbium lasers treatment were similar to acid etching. Besides, there were obvious differences about ARI score of enamel between erbium lasers and acid group. There were higher rate of teeth with ARI score ≤2 in erbium lasers irradiated group than in acid etching group, showed that less adhesive remains on the enamel and may save some chair time for cleaning teeth after debonding.

As we mentioned above, erbium laser etching on enamel had too many parameters variations. At present, no definitive conclusion could be drawn with regard to the clinical efficacy of erbium lasers in the application on SBS bonding to enamel. The lack of sample size also prevented us from obtaining unbiased and reliable results. Further RCTs are needed to confirm the most appropriate parameters etching with enamel. In addition, although erbium lasers can overcome the disadvantages of acid etching, lasers irradiated have a more expensive treatment than traditional ones.[46] This is an important issue to resolve.

Therefore, taking the cost and effectiveness into consideration, several well-designed trials with high methodological quality should be analyzed for SBS and ARI to obtain more effective and safe treatment methods. Anyway, this review will provide a scientific evidence for Er:YAG/Er,Cr:YSSG laser efficacy and safety in treatment of enamel bonding technology in the long term.

In this meta-analysis, we suggested that Er:YAG laser and Er,Cr:YSSG laser are effective when used to etch on the SBS bonded to enamel. Compared with acid technology, there was better about the rate of teeth with ARI score ≤2 in erbium lasers treatment after debonding. Nevertheless, there is still a long way to go for that Er:YAG and Er,Cr:YSSG lasers are applied to orthodontics practice widely instead of acid etching.

Author contributions

Data curation: Qi Gong.

Methodology: Ying Liu.

Project administration: Li Zhang.

Resources: Pan-Pan Zhang.

Supervision: Li Zhang.

Visualization: Li Zhang.

Writing – original draft: Tao Jiang.

Writing – review & editing: Tao Jiang.

Abbreviations:

ARI =
adhesive remnant index
CI =
confidence interval
Er,Cr:YSSG =
erbium-chromium; yttrium-scandium-gallium-garnet
Er:YAG =
erbium-doped yttrium-aluminum-garnet
OR =
odds ratio
RCTs =
randomized controlled trials
SBS =
shear bond strength
SMD =
standardized mean difference

This study is funded by Jinan Municipal Health and Construction Commission science and technology innovation development plan (2019-2-45) and Jinan science and technology innovation development plan (202019006).

The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study.

How to cite this article: Jiang T, Gong Q, Liu Y, Zhang P-P, Zhang L. Effect of erbium family laser etching on shear bond strength of enamel surfaces: A meta-analysis-PRISMA. Medicine 2022;101:40(e30990).

Contributor Information

Qi Gong, Email: gongqi0631@163.com.

Ying Liu, Email: 18037401@qq.com.

References

  • [1].Aglarci C, Demir N, Aksakalli S, et al. Bond strengths of brackets bonded to enamel surfaces conditioned with femtosecond and er:Yag laser systems. Lasers Med Sci. 2016;31:1177–83. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [2].Van MB, De MJ, Mattar D, et al. Microtensile bond strengths of an etch&rinse and self-etch adhesive to enamel and dentin as a function of surface treatment. Oper Dent. 2003;28:647–60. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [3].Nalcaci R, Temel B, Çokakoğlu S, et al. Effects of laser etching on shear bond strengths of brackets bonded to fluorosed enamel. Niger J Clin Pract. 2016;20:545. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [4].Opinya GN, Pameijer CH. Tensile bond strength of fluorosed kenyan teeth using the acid etch technique. Int Dent J. 1986;36:225–9. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [5].Ateyah N, Akpata E. Factors affecting shear bond strength of composite resin to fluorosed human enamel. Oper Dent. 2000;25:216. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [6].Suma S, Anita G, Shekar BC, et al. The effect of air abrasion on the retention of metallic brackets bonded to fluorosed enamel surface. Indian J Dental Res. 2012;23:230. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [7].Silva-Benítez EL, Veronica ZA, Martinez-Castanon GA, et al. Shear bond strength evaluation of bonded molar tubes on fluorotic molars. Angle Orthodontist. 2013;83:152–7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [8].Wen-Peng DU, Xing CW, Yu H, et al. Experimental investigation of shear bond strength on orthodontic bonding on dental fluorosis after air abrading surface preparation technique. Hua Xi Kou Qiang Yi Xue Za Zhi. 2007;25:246. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [9].Adanir N, Türkkahraman H, Güngör AY. Effects of adhesion promoters on the shear bond strengths of orthodontic brackets to fluorosed enamel. Eur J Orthod. 2009;31:276–80. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [10].James N, Karaiskos NE, Wiltshire WA. In vivo bonding of orthodontic brackets to fluorosed enamel using an adhesion promotor. Angle Orthodontist. 2008;78:357–60. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [11].Weerasinghe DS, Nikaido T, Wettasinghe KA, et al. Micro-shear bond strength and morphological analysis of a self-etching primer adhesive system to fluorosed enamel. J Dent. 2005;33:419–26. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [12].Ahmet Yalcin G, Hakan T, Necdet A, et al. Effects of fluorosis and self etching primers on shear bond strengths of orthodontic brackets. Eur J Dentistry. 2009;3:173–7. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [13].Devrim I, Aynur Medine SS, Huseyin A, et al. Effects of fluorosis on the shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets bonded with a self-etching primer. Eur J Orthod. 2011;33:161. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [14].Sallam RA, Arnout EA. Effect of er: Yag laser etching on shear bond strength of orthodontic bracket. Saudi Med J. 2018;39:922–7. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [15].Alavi S, Birang R, Hajizadeh F. Shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets after acid-etched and erbium-doped yttrium aluminum garnet laser-etched. Dental Res J. 2014;11:321–6. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [16].Ghaffari H, Mirhashemi A, Baherimoghadam T, et al. Effect of surface treatment on enamel cracks after orthodontic bracket debonding: Er,cr:Ysgg laser-etching versus acid-etching. J Dent. 2017;14:259–66. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [17].Sfondrini MF, Calderoni G, Vitale MC, et al. Is laser conditioning a valid alternative to conventional etching for aesthetic brackets? Eur J Paediatr Dent. 2018;19:61–6. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [18].Yilanci H, Usumez S, Usumez A. Can we improve the laser etching with the digitally controlled laser handpiece-xrunner? Photomedicine Laser Surg. 2017;35:324–31. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [19].Shannon IL, Miller JT. Caries risk in teeth with orthodonic bands: a review. J Acad General Dentistry. 1972;20:24. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [20].Boyd HK, Zaterka S, Eisig JN, et al. Helicobacter pylori and refractory duodenal ulcers: cross-over comparison of continued cimetidine with cimetidine plus antimicrobials. Am J Gastroenterol. 1994;89:1505. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [21].Üşümez S, Orhan M, Üşümez A. Laser etching of enamel for direct bonding with an er,cr:Ysgg hydrokinetic laser system. Am J Orthodontics Dentofacial Orthopedics. 2002;122:649–56. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [22].Olsen ME, Bishara SE, Boyer DB, et al. Effect of varying etching times on the bond strength of ceramic brackets. Am J Orthodontics Dentofacial Orthopedics. 1996;109:403–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [23].Hosseini MH, Namvar F, Chalipa J, et al. Comparison of shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets bonded to enamel prepared by er:Yag laser and conventional acid-etching. J Dent. 2012;9:20–6. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [24].Hoshing UA, Patil S, Medha A, et al. Comparison of shear bond strength of composite resin to enamel surface with laser etching versus acid etching: An in vitro evaluation. J Conservative Dentistry: JCD. 2014;17:320–4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [25].Akhoundi MSA, Etemadi A, Nasiri M, et al. Comparison of enamel morphologic characteristics after conditioning with various combinations of acid etchant and er:Yag laser in bonding and rebonding procedures: a sem analysis. J Dent. 2017;14:144–52. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [26].Heravi F, Shafaee H, Abdollahi M, et al. How is the enamel affected by different orthodontic bonding agents and polishing techniques? J Dent. 2015;12:188–94. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [27].Kiomarsi N, Arjmand Y, Kharrazi Fard MJ, et al. Effects of erbium family laser on shear bond strength of composite to dentin after internal bleaching. J Lasers Med Sci. 2018;9:58–62. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [28].Aranha AC, De PEC, Gutknecht N, et al. Analysis of the interfacial micromorphology of adhesive systems in cavities prepared with er,cr:Ysgg, er:Yag laser and bur. Microscopy Res Technique. 2010;70:745–51. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [29].Esteves-Oliveira M, Zezell DM, Apel C, et al. Bond strength of self-etching primer to bur cut, er,cr:Ysgg, and er:Yag lased dental surfaces. Photomedicine Laser Surg. 2007;25:373–80. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [30].Ferreira LS, Apel C, Francci C, et al. Influence of etching time on bond strength in dentin irradiated with erbium lasers. Lasers Med Sci. 2010;25:849–54. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [31].Harashima T, Kinoshita J, Kimura Y, et al. Morphological comparative study on ablation of dental hard tissues at cavity preparation by er:Yag and er,cr:Ysgg lasers. Photomedicine Laser Surg. 2005;23:52–5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [32].Sima S, Nasim C, Hoda B, et al. The effect of erbium family laser on tensile bond strength of composite to dentin in comparison with conventional method. Lasers Med Sci. 2013;28:139–42. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [33].Green JPHS. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0. The Cochrane Collaboration. 2011. [Google Scholar]
  • [34].Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the prisma statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6:e1000097. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [35].Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, et al. Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials. 1996;17:1–12. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [36].Artun J, Bergland S. Clinical trials with crystal growth conditioning as an alternative to acid-etch enamel pretreatment. Am J Orthodontics. 1984;85:333–40. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [37].Li T, Zhang X, Shi H, et al. Er:Yag laser application in caries removal and cavity preparation in children: a meta-analysis. Lasers Med Sci. 2018;34:273–80. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [38].Higgins JP, Green S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions: Cochrane Book Series. 2008. [Google Scholar]
  • [39].Begg CB, Mazumdar M. Operating characteristics of a rank correlation test for publication bias. Biometrics. 1994;50:1088–101. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [40].Seagroatt V, Stratton I. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. Test had 10% false positive rate. Bmj Br Med J. 1997;316:469–71. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [41].Serkan S, Aslihan U, Ebru A, et al. Effect of enamel laser irradiation at different pulse settings on shear bond strength of orthodontic brackets. Angle Orthodontist. 2013;83:973–80. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [42].Ozer T, Basaran G, Berk N. Laser etching of enamel for orthodontic bonding. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008;134:193–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [43].Basaran EG, Ayna E, Basaran G, et al. Influence of different power outputs of erbium, chromium:Yttrium-scandium-gallium-garnet laser and acid etching on shear bond strengths of a dual-cure resin cement to enamel. Lasers Med Sci. 2011;26:13–9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [44].Dilip S, Srinivas S, Mohammed Noufal MN, et al. Comparison of surface roughness of enamel and shear bond strength, between conventional acid etching and erbium, chromium-doped: yttrium scandium-gallium-garnet laser etching - an in vitro study. Dental Res J. 2018;15:248–55. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [45].Ustunkol I, Yazici AR, Gorucu J, et al. Influence of laser etching on enamel and dentin bond strength of silorane system adhesive. Lasers Med Sci. 2015;30:695–700. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • [46].Rachel C, Tassos I. The use of lasers for periodontal debridement: marketing tool or proven therapy? J Can Dental Assoc. 2005;71:653–8. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Medicine are provided here courtesy of Wolters Kluwer Health

RESOURCES