Table Info

Table 1.

Parameters used in included studies

Laser type	Reference	Comparator	Type of laser	Mode	Fiber/Tip diameter	Power (Watt)/Frequency (Hz)	Pulse energy (mJ)	Pulse width
Other lasers	Altayeb et al. [26] (2022)	Open flap/flapless	Er,Cr:YSGG (2,780 nm)	Pulsed	0.6 mm	3/50	60	700 µm
	Naidu and Gajendran [44] (2022)	Diode versa Er,Cr:YSGG	Diode (940 nm)	Gated pulsed	400 µm	1–1.5/Not-reported	Not-reported	Not-reported
	Naidu and Gajendran [44] (2022)	Diode versa Er,Cr:YSGG	Er,Cr:YSGG (2,780 nm)	Pulsed	MZ5	3/18	382.1	Not-reported
	Tianmitrapap et al. [25] (2022)	Scalpel for soft tissue removal	Er,Cr:YSGG (2,780 nm)	Pulsed	0.6 mm	1.5/Not-reported	Not-reported	Not-reported
	Tianmitrapap et al. [25] (2022)	Rotary instrumentation for hard tissue removal	Er,Cr:YSGG (2,780 nm)	Pulsed	0.6 mm	1.5/Not-reported	Not-reported	Not-reported
	Thuaksuban and Nuntanaranont [42] (2003)	Scalpel	CO₂ (10,600 nm)	Not-reported	Not-reported	Not-reported/Not-reported	Not-reported	Not-reported
	Jensen et al. [40] (2010)	Scalpel	Nd:YAG (1,064 nm)	Pulsed	Not-reported	7/50	Not-reported	250 µs
	White et al. [31] (1991)	Scalpel	Nd:YAG (1,064 nm)	Pulsed (contact mode)	320 µm	1.25–3/15–20	Not-reported	150 µs
	Kazakova et al. [36] (2018)	1-Scalpe 2-Cercamic bur 3-Electrocautery	Diode (810 nm)	CW (contact mode)	300 µm	1.5/N/A	N/A	N/A
			Er:YAG (2,940 nm)	Pulsed	Spot diameter 0.8 mm	5.4/18	300	400 µs
			CO₂ (10,600 nm)	Pulsed (non-contact)	Spot diameter 2.5 mm	9.69/200	Not-reported	Not-reported
	Taskan et al. [32] (2020)	1-Electrosurgery 2-Scalpel	Er:YAG (2,940 nm)	Pulsed	1.3 mm	2/10	200	1,000 µs
	Taskan et al. [32] (2020)	1-Electrosurgery 2-Scalpel	Nd:YAG (1,064 nm)	Pulsed	300 µm	4/50	Not-reported	180 µs
Diode lasers	Lione et al. [41] (2020)	1-Scalpel 2-Nonsurgical periodontal treatment	Diode (810 nm)	CW (contact mode)	300 µm	1–1.5/N/A	N/A	N/A
	Elmahal et al. [33] (2018)	Scalpel	Diode (808 nm)	Pulsed (contact mode)	400 µm	2/26 ms pulsed interval	Not-reported	Not-reported
	Koppolu et al. [34] (2017)	Scalpel	Diode (808 nm)	CW	300 µm	0.8–1/N/A	N/A	N/A
	Elif et al. [30] (2017)	Scalpel	Diode (940 nm)	CW	400 µm	0.9/N/A	N/A	N/A
	Farista et al. [28] (2016)	Scalpel	Diode (940 nm)	CW (contact mode)	400 µm	0.8–1.5/N/A	N/A	N/A
	Kumar et al. [39] (2015)	Electrocautery	Diode (980 nm)	Not reported	200 µm	5/Not-reported	Not-reported	Not-reported
	Bhat et al. [38] (2015)	Scalpel	Diode (940 nm)	Pulsed (contact mode)	Not-reported	2/1 ms on, 1 ms off	Not-reported	100 µs
	Kumar et al. [50] (2015)	Scalpel	Diode (980 nm)	CW	Not-reported	1.8/N/A	N/A	N/A
	Sobouti et al. [29] (2014)	Scalpel	Diode (940 nm)	CW	400 µm	0.9/N/A	N/A	N/A
	Ize-Iyamu et al. [37] (2013)	Scalpel	Diode (810 nm)	Not-reported	Not-reported	Not-reported/Not-reported	Not-reported	Not-reported
	To et al. [43] (2013)	Nonsurgical periodontal treatment	Diode (940 nm)	Pulsed (contact mode)	300 µm	1/0.2 ms pulse interval	Not-reported	50 µs
	Mavrogiannis et al. [35] (2006)	Scalpel	Diode (810 nm)	Not-reported	Not-reported	Not-reported/Not-reported	Not-reported	Not-reported
	Alwan et al. [27] (2021)	Scalpel	Diode (940 nm)	Pulsed	Not-reported	1/Not-reported	Not-reported	Not-reported
	Musaa et al. [45] (2017)	Scalpel	Diode (940 nm)	Pulsed	400 µm	Avg = 1.5/Not-reported	60	20 ms

nm: nanometer; mJ: millijoules; Hz: hertz; CW: continious wave; N/A: not applicable; CO₂: carbon dioxide; Nd:YAG: neodymium-doped yttrium aluminum garnet; Er:YAG: erbium-doped yttrium aluminum garnet; Er,Cr:YSGG: chromium-doped yttrium scandium gallium garnet laser

Declarations

Author contributions

OH, SA, RG, RM, WA, and MK: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Writing—original draft, Writing—review & editing.

Conflicts of interest

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Ethical approval

Not applicable.

Consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent to publication

Not applicable.

Availability of data and materials

The dataset used during the study is available from the corresponding author upon request.

Funding

Not applicable.

Copyright

Publisher’s note

Open Exploration maintains a neutral stance on jurisdictional claims in published institutional affiliations and maps. All opinions expressed in this article are the personal views of the author(s) and do not represent the stance of the editorial team or the publisher.

References

Davis NC. Smile design. Dent Clin North Am. 2007;51:299–318. [DOI] [PubMed]

Jensen J, Joss A, Lang NP. The smile line of different ethnic groups in relation to age and gender. Acta Med Dent Helv. 1999;4:38–46.

Robbins JW. Differential diagnosis and treatment of excess gingival display. Pract Periodontics Aesthet Dent. 1999;11:265–72; quiz 273. [PubMed]

Diaspro A, Cavallini M, Piersini P, Sito G. Gummy Smile Treatment: Proposal for a Novel Corrective Technique and a Review of the Literature. Aesthet Surg J. 2018;38:1330–8. [DOI] [PubMed]

Marzadori M, Stefanini M, Sangiorgi M, Mounssif I, Monaco C, Zucchelli G. Crown lengthening and restorative procedures in the esthetic zone. Periodontol 2000. 2018;77:84–92. [DOI] [PubMed]

Kulkarni RB, Misal A, Mishra R. Soft tissue diode laser in orthodontics. Int J Appl Dent Sci. 2017;3:91–4.

Borzabadi-Farahani A. The Adjunctive Soft-Tissue Diode Laser in Orthodontics. Compend Contin Educ Dent. 2017;38:e18–31. [PubMed]

Borzabadi-Farahani A. A Scoping Review of the Efficacy of Diode Lasers Used for Minimally Invasive Exposure of Impacted Teeth or Teeth with Delayed Eruption. Photonics. 2022;9:265. [DOI]

Jorgensen MG, Nowzari H. Aesthetic crown lengthening. Periodontol 2000. 2001;27:45–58. [DOI] [PubMed]

10.

Alpiste-Illueca F. Altered passive eruption (APE): a little-known clinical situation. Med Oral Patol Oral Cir Bucal. 2011;16:e100–4. [DOI] [PubMed]

11.

Lee EA. Aesthetic crown lengthening: classification, biologic rationale, and treatment planning considerations. Pract Proced Aesthet Dent. 2004;16:769–78; quiz 780. [PubMed]

12.

Pilalas I, Tsalikis L, Tatakis DN. Pre-restorative crown lengthening surgery outcomes: a systematic review. J Clin Periodontol. 2016;43:1094–108. [DOI] [PubMed]

13.

Schmidt JC, Sahrmann P, Weiger R, Schmidlin PR, Walter C. Biologic width dimensions--a systematic review. J Clin Periodontol. 2013;40:493–504. [DOI] [PubMed]

14.

Dolt AH 3rd, Robbins JW. Altered passive eruption: an etiology of short clinical crowns. Quintessence Int. 1997;28:363–72. [PubMed]

15.

Xu D, Wang P, Liu H, Gu M. Efficacy of three surgical methods for gingivectomy of permanent anterior teeth with delayed tooth eruption in children. Head Face Med. 2022;18:23. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

16.

Akram HM, Ali OH, Omran NK, Ali AO. Diode Laser Versus Scalpel Gingivectomy. Biomed Pharmacol J. 2017;10. [DOI]

17.

Borzabadi-Farahani A. Laser Use in Muco-Gingival Surgical Orthodontics. In: Lasers in Dentistry—Current Concepts. 2024. pp. 379–98. [DOI]

18.

Cobb CM. Lasers in periodontics: a review of the literature. J Periodontol. 2006;77:545–64. [DOI] [PubMed]

19.

Niemz MH. Laser-tissue interactions: Fundamentals and Applications. Springer; 2019.

20.

Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

21.

Haddaway NR, Page MJ, Pritchard CC, McGuinness LA. PRISMA2020: An R package and Shiny app for producing PRISMA 2020-compliant flow diagrams, with interactivity for optimised digital transparency and Open Synthesis. Campbell Syst Rev. 2022;18:e1230. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

22.

Sterne JAC, Savović J, Page MJ, Elbers RG, Blencowe NS, Boutron I, et al. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2019;366:l4898. [DOI] [PubMed]

23.

McGuinness LA, Higgins JPT. Risk-of-bias VISualization (robvis): An R package and Shiny web app for visualizing risk-of-bias assessments. Res Synth Methods. 2021;12:55–61. [DOI] [PubMed]

24.

Sterne JA, Hernán MA, Reeves BC, Savović J, Berkman ND, Viswanathan M, et al. ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ. 2016;355:i4919. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

25.

Tianmitrapap P, Srisuwantha R, Laosrisin N. Flapless Er,Cr:YSGG laser versus traditional flap in crown lengthening procedure. J Dent Sci. 2022;17:89–95. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

26.

Altayeb W, Arnabat-Dominguez J, Low SB, Abdullah A, Romanos GE. Laser-Assisted Esthetic Crown Lengthening: Open-Flap Versus Flapless. Int J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 2022;42:53–62. [DOI] [PubMed]

27.

Alwan AH, Althabit RA, Alghazali W, Hussain AA. Gingivectomy by Diode Laser and Conventional Method (A Comparative Study). J Dent Med Sci. 2021;20:56–61. [DOI]

28.

Farista S, Kalakonda B, Koppolu P, Baroudi K, Elkhatat E, Dhaifullah E. Comparing Laser and Scalpel for Soft Tissue Crown Lengthening: A Clinical Study. Glob J Health Sci. 2016;8:55795. [DOI] [PubMed]

29.

Sobouti F, Rakhshan V, Chiniforush N, Khatami M. Effects of laser-assisted cosmetic smile lift gingivectomy on postoperative bleeding and pain in fixed orthodontic patients: a controlled clinical trial. Prog Orthod. 2014;15:66. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

30.

Elif Ö, Alan R, Erbeyoğlu A. Comparison of gingivectomy procedures for patient satisfaction: conventional and diode laser surgery. Selcuk Dent J. 2017;4:6–9. [DOI]

31.

White JM, Goodis HE, Rose CL. Use of the pulsed Nd:YAG laser for intraoral soft tissue surgery. Lasers Surg Med. 1991;11:455–61. [DOI] [PubMed]

32.

Taskan MM, Keskiner I, Aydogdu A. Evaluation of temperature and healing in treatment of gingival enlargement using different gingivectomy techniques: A randomized controlled clinical study. 2020.

33.

Elmahal BA, Supervisor E, Osman NSE. Evaluation of Gingival Healing Following Gingivectomy using Diode Laser Versus Scalpel. 2018.

34.

Koppolu P, Babu B, Mishra A, Swapna LA, Elkhatat E, Abdulaziz A, et al. Smile correction using an esthetic crown lengthening with either diode laser or scalpel–A comparative clinical patient perspective study. Br J Med Med Res. 2017;19:1–9. [DOI]

35.

Mavrogiannis M, Ellis JS, Seymour RA, Thomason JM. The efficacy of three different surgical techniques in the management of drug-induced gingival overgrowth. J Clin Periodontol. 2006;33:677–82. [DOI] [PubMed]

36.

Kazakova RT, Tomov GT, Kissov CK, Vlahova AP, Zlatev SC, Bachurska SY. Histological Gingival Assessment after Conventional and Laser Gingivectomy. Folia Med (Plovdiv). 2018;60:610–6. [DOI] [PubMed]

37.

Ize-Iyamu IN, Saheeb BD, Edetanlen BE. Comparing the 810nm diode laser with conventional surgery in orthodontic soft tissue procedures. Ghana Med J. 2013;47:107–11. [PubMed] [PMC]

38.

Bhat P, Thakur SL, Kulkarni SS. Evaluation of soft tissue marginal stability achieved after excision with a conventional technique in comparison with laser excision: A pilot study. Indian J Dent Res. 2015;26:186–8. [DOI] [PubMed]

39.

Kumar P, Rattan V, Rai S. Comparative evaluation of healing after gingivectomy with electrocautery and laser. J Oral Biol Craniofac Res. 2015;5:69–74. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

40.

Jensen J, Lulic M, Heitz-Mayfield LJ, Joss A, Lang NP. Nd:YAG (1064 nm) laser for the treatment of chronic periodontitis: a pilot study. J Investig Clin Dent. 2010;1:16–22. [DOI] [PubMed]

41.

Lione R, Pavoni C, Noviello A, Clementini M, Danesi C, Cozza P. Conventional versus laser gingivectomy in the management of gingival enlargement during orthodontic treatment: a randomized controlled trial. Eur J Orthod. 2020;42:78–85. [DOI] [PubMed]

42.

Thuaksuban N, Nuntanaranont T. A comparative study of postoperative pain using carbon dioxide laser and scalpel in maxillofacial soft tissue surgery. Int Congr Ser. 2003;1248:377–81. [DOI]

43.

To TN, Rabie AB, Wong RW, McGrath CP. The adjunct effectiveness of diode laser gingivectomy in maintaining periodontal health during orthodontic treatment. Angle Orthod. 2013;83:43–7. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]

44.

Naidu I, Gajendran PL. Comparative evaluation of wound healing following gingivectomy using diode laserand erbium, chromium-doped yttrium, scandium, gallium and garnet (Er: Cr: YSGG) laser in patients undergoing fixed orthodontic treatment-a randomized controlled trial. Int J Orthod Rehabil. 2022;13:16–22. [DOI]

45.

Musaa FE, Awazli LG, Alhamdani F. Gingival enlargement management using diode laser 940 nm and conventional scalpel technique (A comparative study). Iraqi J Laser. 2017;16:1–9.

46.

Ebell MH, Siwek J, Weiss BD, Woolf SH, Susman J, Ewigman B, et al. Strength of recommendation taxonomy (SORT): a patient-centered approach to grading evidence in the medical literature. Am Fam Physician. 2004;69:548–56. [PubMed]

47.

Ashkenazy S, DeKeyser Ganz F. The Differentiation Between Pain and Discomfort: A Concept Analysis of Discomfort. Pain Manag Nurs. 2019;20:556–62. [DOI] [PubMed]

48.

Bhasker A, Goel V, Jain D, Mehta V. Comparison of Scalpel and Diode Laser in Management of Gingival Enlargement: A Case Report. Int Healthc Res J. 2021;4:CR1–3. [DOI]

49.

Kawamura R, Mizutani K, Lin T, Kakizaki S, Mimata A, Watanabe K, et al. Ex Vivo Evaluation of Gingival Ablation with Various Laser Systems and Electroscalpel. Photobiomodul Photomed Laser Surg. 2020;38:364–73. [DOI] [PubMed]

50.

Kumar R, Jain G, Dhodapkar SV, Kumathalli KI, Jaiswal G. The Comparative Evaluation of Patient's Satisfaction and Comfort Level by Diode Laser and Scalpel in the Management of Mucogingival Anomalies. J Clin Diagn Res. 2015;9:ZC56–8. [DOI] [PubMed] [PMC]