Skip to main content
Article

Clinical assessment of Erbium:YAG laser and CO₂ laser in cavity preparation – An original research

Niladri MaitiProfessor & Dean, School of Dentistry, Central Asian University, Tashkent, UzbekistanRiddhi ChawlaProfessor, School of Dentistry, Central Asian University, Tashkent, UzbekistanStefano BenedicentiProfessor, Department of Surgical and Diagnostic Sciences, University of Genoa, Genoa, ItalyAkarsha Singh MultaniSenior Lecturer, Faculty of Dentistry, MAHSA University, Bandar Saujana Putra, MalaysiaSubhasis DasDental surgeon Attached to Domkal Superspeciality Hospital, Domkal, Murshidaabad West Bengal Dental Service, Department of West Bengal Health and Family Welfare, Government of West Bengal, IndiaPratik AgrawalReader, Department of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics, Kalinga Institute of Dental Sciences, KIIT Deemed to be University, Bhubaneswar, India
ABI

Abstract

Background: Dental lasers have gained increasing attention in restorative dentistry as minimally invasive alternatives to conventional rotary instruments. Among the commonly used lasers, the Erbium:Yttrium Aluminum Garnet (Er:YAG) laser and Carbon Dioxide (CO₂) laser have shown promising results in hard tissue procedures. These laser systems are known to reduce patient discomfort, minimize vibration and noise, and potentially improve clinical outcomes during cavity preparation. Aim: To clinically evaluate and compare the effectiveness of Er:YAG laser and CO₂ laser in cavity preparation. Materials and Methods: This randomized clinical study included 100 patients requiring cavity preparation for dental caries. Participants were randomly divided into two groups: Group A (n=50) underwent cavity preparation using the Er:YAG laser, while Group B (n=50) received treatment with the CO₂ laser. Clinical parameters evaluated included time required for cavity preparation, pain perception using Visual Analog Scale (VAS), need for local anesthesia, and postoperative sensitivity. All cavities were restored with composite resin following standardized bonding procedures. Statistical analysis was performed using STATA software, applying independent t-test and chi-square test with significance set at p < 0.05. Results: The results showed that the Er:YAG laser required significantly less preparation time (6.12 ± 1.35 min) compared to the CO₂ laser (7.48 ± 1.62 min) (p = 0.001). Pain perception scores were also significantly lower in the Er:YAG group (2.1 ± 0.9) compared with the CO₂ group (3.4 ± 1.2) (p = 0.002). Fewer patients required local anesthesia in the Er:YAG group (16%) than in the CO₂ group (34%). Postoperative sensitivity was also lower among patients treated with the Er:YAG laser. Conclusion: Both laser systems were effective for cavity preparation; however, the Er:YAG laser demonstrated better clinical performance in terms of efficiency, reduced pain, and improved patient comfort. The findings suggest that Er:YAG laser may serve as a more effective and patient-friendly alternative for cavity preparation in restorative dentistry.

Topics

Identifiers

Citations and references

Cited by 00 references