Exploration of Medicine

Table 2. Summary of included studies

Reference	Type of study	Number of patients (F)	Adverse events/Complication	Follow-up	Results
Altayeb et al. [26] (2022)	Clinical trial	36	Not-reported	9 Months	E
Naidu and Gajendran [44] (2022)	RCT	40	Not-reported	14 Days	E
Tianmitrapap et al. [25] (2022)	Clinical trial	25 (21)	None	3 Months	E
Thuaksuban and Nuntanaranont [42] (2003)	Comparative study	14	None	7 Days	E
Jensen et al. [40] (2010)	RCT	8 (4)	Root sensitivity in the first 4 weeks	6 Months	E
White et al. [31] (1991)	RCT	29	None	1 Month	E
Kazakova et al. [36] (2018)	Histological study	18	None	-	E
Taskan et al. [32] (2020)	RCT	37 (17)	None	15 Days	E
Lione et al. [41] (2020)	RCT	56 (25)	None	6 Months	E
Elmahal et al. [33] (2018)	Clinical trial	11	None	3 Weeks	E
Koppolu et al. [34] (2017)	RCT	14 (8)	None	4 Weeks	E
Elif et al. [30] (2017)	RCT	20 (12)	None	-	E
Farista et al. [28] (2016)	RCT	22	None	10 Days	E
Kumar et al. [39] (2015)	RCT	17 (7)	Charring	3 Months	E
Bhat et al. [38] (2015)	RCT	20	None	4 Weeks	E
Kumar et al. [50] (2015)	RCT	70	None	3 Weeks	E
Sobouti et al. [29] (2014)	RCT	30 (18)	None	-	E
Ize-Iyamu et al. [37] (2013)	RCT	23 (17)	None	-	E
To et al. [43] (2013)	RCT	30 (15)	None	6 Months	E
Mavrogiannis et al. [35] (2006)	RCT	23 (2)	None	6 Months	E
Alwan et al. [27] (2021)	Comparative study	18	Not-reported	2 Weeks	E
Musaa et al. [45] (2017)	Comparative study	30	None	2 Weeks	E

Return to article view

F: female; RCT: randomised clinical trial; E: effective

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]