To evaluate the efficacy of the adjunctive laser therapy in conventional non-surgical treatment of chronic periodontitis, an electronic search was performed through the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and China Biology Medicine (CBM) Disc, for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs. All the 12 included studies (11 RCTs and 1 quasi-RCT) were qualified for descriptive and quantitative analysis. Outcomes were divided into two groups according to the length of follow-ups (long term and short term). Subgroup analyses were performed based on the mode of laser (inside and outside mode). Among all included researches, reduction in probing depth (PD) and gain in clinical attachment level (CAL) were presented with the mean value and 95 % confidence interval, while bleeding on probing (BOP) was assessed descriptively. Meta-analysis suggested that adjunctive laser therapy reduced PD at 3 months [mean difference (MD) = -0.26, 95 % confidence interval (CI) range = -0.43 to -0.09, p = 0.003] but did not demonstrate significant effect on the CAL at either 3 months (MD = -0.03, 95 % CI range = -0.25 to 0.19, p = 0.79) or 6 months (MD = -0.11, 95 % CI range = -0.38 to 0.16, p = 0.43). Subgroup analyses indicated that laser therapy would be more effective when the probes were set up outside the periodontal pockets.

Objective: To compare the anchorage effects of the implants and the headgear for patients with anterior teeth retraction in terms of incisor retraction, anchorage loss, inclination of maxillary incisors, positional change of maxillary basal bone, and treatment duration. Materials and Methods: An electronic search for relative randomized controlled trials (RCTs) prospective and retrospective controlled trials was done through the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), PubMed, Embase, Medline, and CNKI, regardless of language of study. Study selection, methodological quality assessment, and data extraction were performed by two reviewers independently. Meta-analysis was performed when possible; otherwise descriptive assessment was done. Results: The search yielded 35 articles, of which eight met the inclusion criteria and were categorized into five groups according to types of intervention. For the midpalatal implant, the anchorage loss was much less than for the headgear group, with insignificant differences in terms of anterior teeth retraction, maxillary incisor inclination, positional change of basal bone, and treatment duration. For the mini-implant, greater anterior teeth retraction and less anchorage loss were demonstrated, with inconsistent results for the other measures. For the onplant, less anchorage loss was noted, with insignificant differences for the other measures. Conclusions: The skeletal anchorage of the midpalatal implant, mini-implant, and onplant offer better alternatives to headgear, with less anchorage loss and more anterior teeth retraction. There were inconsistent results from the included studies in terms of maxillary incisor inclination, positional change of maxillary basal bone, and treatment duration. More qualified RCTs are required to provide clear recommendations. (Angle Orthod. 2011;81:915-922.)