Question · asked by 1 review

Open surgical exposure vs Closed surgical exposure: Clinical attachment level (CAL)

Population
People with maxillary palatally displaced (impacted) canines, unilateral or bilateral (children/adolescents; mean ages 14.2 to 17.5 years)
Intervention
Open surgical exposure
Comparison
Closed surgical exposure
Outcome
Clinical attachment level (CAL)

Open surgical exposure showed no clear difference in gum health: clinical attachment level (CAL) compared with closed surgical exposure (low certainty).

What each review found

Current versions only
FindingEffectStudiesGRADE certainty
Open surgical exposure vs Closed surgical exposure
Gum health: clinical attachment level (CAL) · People with maxillary palatally displaced (impacted) canines, unilateral or bilateral (children/adolescents; mean ages… · 3 months post-debond
Open surgical exposure showed no clear difference in gum health: clinical attachment level (CAL) compared with closed surgical exposure (low certainty).
Open versus closed surgical exposure of canine teeth that are displaced in the roof of the mouth (2017) · Cochrane All outcomes
MD -0.10 [-0.45, 0.25]1 study · 62 participantsLow

Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.

The reviews

ReviewSearched up toIncluded studiesAMSTAR 2
Open versus closed surgical exposure of canine teeth that are displaced in the roof of the mouth
2017 · Cochrane All outcomes
2017-02Not listedNot 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.