Comparative Efficacy of Laser Versus Conventional Method in the Success of Circumferential Supracrestal Fiberotomy in Orthodontic Patients: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: The relapse of rotated teeth is a significant concern in orthodontics, and circumferential supracrestal fiberotomy (CSF) presents a potential solution. Traditionally, CSF is performed using a surgical blade; however, employing a laser may reduce complications. This study aimed to systematically review the literature comparing laser-assisted CSF with conventional methods in orthodontic patients. Methods: A comprehensive search was conducted across the PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases using a specific search strategy up to June 16, 2024. Data extraction was done in accordance with the defined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Results: Initially, a total of 293 articles were identified through the search process, and ultimately, four were selected for analysis based on specific inclusion and exclusion criteria. The studies involved various types of lasers including diode (810 to 940 nm), Er:YAG, and Er,Cr:YSGG lasers, and examined the effects of low-level laser therapy (LLLT) in conjunction with surgical interventions. Regarding relapse rates, two studies reported that both laser and surgical blade techniques demonstrated comparable efficacy, while adjunctive LLLT was effective in reducing relapse. In the other two studies, the use of laser therapy was found to be effective in decreasing relapse rates compared to the control group. Pain assessment results were inconclusive; one study reported reduced pain in the laser group, while another found no significant difference in pain levels between the laser and blade techniques. Furthermore, no significant differences were observed in periodontal pocket depth or gingival recession between the two methods. Conclusion: Within the limitations of the current systematic review, our findings indicate that there is no significant difference in relapse rates between laser and blade CSF procedures. Furthermore, our results suggest that the incorporation of photobiomodulation at higher doses is correlated with a reduction in relapse rates following fiberotomy procedures.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".