Question · asked by 1 review
Enhanced one-to-one OHA vs Routine one-to-one OHA: Probing pocket depth
- Population
- Children or adults (fit and healthy, or with a well-defined medical condition)
- Intervention
- Enhanced one-to-one OHA
- Comparison
- Routine one-to-one OHA
- Outcome
- Probing pocket depth
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Enhanced one-to-one OHA vs One-to-one OHA (standard) Probing depth · Children or adults (fit and healthy, or with a well-defined medical condition) One‐to‐one oral hygiene advice provided in a dental setting for oral health (2018) · Cochrane All outcomes | Bali 1999 (probing depths) and Soderholm 1982 (pocket depths > 5 mm); measured but not synthesised or GRADE-rated. | 2 studies | GRADE not reported |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| One‐to‐one oral hygiene advice provided in a dental setting for oral health 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes | 2017-11 | Not listed | Not assessed |
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.