evidencegaps
Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

Refine by population, intervention, comparison or outcome
More filters
Evidence found and GRADE certainty

347 questions · 355 findings · 51 reviews

Sort:Best matchNewestHighest certaintyDownload CSV
No studies found 135 · 38%GRADE not reported 45 · 12.7%Very low 90 · 25.4%Low 63 · 17.7%Moderate 15 · 4.2%High 7 · 2%

Occlusal adjustment as an adjunct to non-surgical periodontal therapy vs Non-surgical periodontal therapy alone (no occlusal adjustment)

Attachment change · Adults with chronic periodontitis

Occlusal adjustment as an adjunct to non-surgical periodontal therapy led to higher clinical attachment level change (mean gain, mm) compared with non-surgical periodontal therapy alone (no occlusal adjustment); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Surgically induced or chronic acid gastroesophageal reflux (experimental) vs Non-reflux control animals

Dental erosion, alveolar bone destruction and oral/pharyngeal lesions · Rat models with surgically induced or chronic acid gastroesophageal reflux

In experimental rat models, induced gastroesophageal reflux caused dental erosion, alveolar bone destruction and oral lesions compared with controls, supporting biological plausibility; evidence is ungraded animal research.

1 finding from 1 review

Any orthodontic and/or surgical treatment for Angle Class III malocclusion vs no intervention or another intervention

Correction of prominent lower front teeth / effectiveness of treatment (planned primary outcome) · Adults (16 years of age or older) with an Angle Class III malocclusion (prominent lower front teeth); people with syndromes, clefts or…

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review
  • Treatments for adults with prominent lower front teeth 2012 · Cochrane All outcomes
    No included study measured the planned primary outcome. Discussion: 'The primary outcome proposed for this review was to evaluate the effectiveness of treatments for prognathism, but none of the studies conclusively…
    Studies not reported
    No studies found

Root-end resection (with or without root-end filling; surgical retreatment) vs Non-surgical re-treatment (orthograde root canal therapy)

Healing rate · People with one or more endodontically treated teeth and a periapical condition requiring retreatment

Root-end resection (with or without root-end filling; surgical… showed no clear difference in healing - 10 years compared with root canal retreatment (non-surgical/orthograde); GRADE not reported.

2 findings from 1 review

Root-end resection (with or without root-end filling; surgical retreatment) vs Non-surgical re-treatment (orthograde root canal therapy)

Participants reporting swelling · People with one or more endodontically treated teeth and a periapical condition requiring retreatment
1 finding from 1 review
  • Endodontic procedures for retreatment of periapical lesions 2016 · Cochrane All outcomes
    first postoperative week
    Significantly higher number of participants reporting swelling in the root-end resection group than in the root canal retreatment group during the first postoperative week (Analysis 1.5); per-day totals not pooled.
    1 study
    GRADE not reported

Root-end resection (with or without root-end filling; surgical retreatment) vs Non-surgical re-treatment (orthograde root canal therapy)

Prevalence of pain - 1 day · People with one or more endodontically treated teeth and a periapical condition requiring retreatment

Root-end resection (with or without root-end filling; surgical… may leads to higher prevalence of pain - 1 day (participants reporting pain) compared with root canal retreatment (non-surgical/orthograde) (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Root-end resection (with or without root-end filling; surgical retreatment) vs Non-surgical re-treatment (orthograde root canal therapy)

Healing - 1 year · People with one or more endodontically treated teeth and a periapical condition requiring retreatment

It is very uncertain whether root-end resection (with or without root-end filling; surgical… changes healing - 1 year compared with root canal retreatment (non-surgical/orthograde) (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Primary surgical intervention (curettage, peripheral osteotomy, or resection) vs Primary non-surgical intervention (intralesional corticosteroids, subcutaneous calcitonin, interferon alpha, or imatinib)

Overall survival · Patients with a pathological diagnosis of central giant cell granuloma (CGCG) of the jaws

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Primary surgical intervention (curettage, peripheral osteotomy, or resection) vs Primary non-surgical intervention (intralesional corticosteroids, subcutaneous calcitonin, interferon alpha, or imatinib)

Disease-free survival · Patients with a pathological diagnosis of central giant cell granuloma (CGCG) of the jaws

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Primary surgical intervention (curettage, peripheral osteotomy, or resection) vs Primary non-surgical intervention (intralesional corticosteroids, subcutaneous calcitonin, interferon alpha, or imatinib)

Resectability · Patients with a pathological diagnosis of central giant cell granuloma (CGCG) of the jaws

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Primary surgical intervention (curettage, peripheral osteotomy, or resection) vs Primary non-surgical intervention (intralesional corticosteroids, subcutaneous calcitonin, interferon alpha, or imatinib)

Quality of life · Patients with a pathological diagnosis of central giant cell granuloma (CGCG) of the jaws

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Primary surgical intervention (curettage, peripheral osteotomy, or resection) vs Primary non-surgical intervention (intralesional corticosteroids, subcutaneous calcitonin, interferon alpha, or imatinib)

Adverse events · Patients with a pathological diagnosis of central giant cell granuloma (CGCG) of the jaws

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Primary surgical intervention (curettage, peripheral osteotomy, or resection) vs Primary non-surgical intervention (intralesional corticosteroids, subcutaneous calcitonin, interferon alpha, or imatinib)

Complete remission · Patients with a pathological diagnosis of central giant cell granuloma (CGCG) of the jaws

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Primary surgical intervention (curettage, peripheral osteotomy, or resection) vs Primary non-surgical intervention (intralesional corticosteroids, subcutaneous calcitonin, interferon alpha, or imatinib)

Partial reduction · Patients with a pathological diagnosis of central giant cell granuloma (CGCG) of the jaws

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Primary surgical intervention (curettage, peripheral osteotomy, or resection) vs Primary non-surgical intervention (intralesional corticosteroids, subcutaneous calcitonin, interferon alpha, or imatinib)

Recurrence · Patients with a pathological diagnosis of central giant cell granuloma (CGCG) of the jaws

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Surgical removal of the lesion (surgical excision, laser surgery, cryotherapy) vs Placebo or no treatment

Outcome not reported · People with a diagnosis of oral leukoplakia

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review
  • Interventions for treating oral leukoplakia to prevent oral cancer 2016 · Cochrane All outcomes
    'We did not identify any RCTs that compared surgical treatments with placebo or no treatment.' Three surgical RCTs were found (Chee 2013, Lopez-Jornet 2013, Schwarz 2005) but all excluded because they did not include a…
    Studies not reported
    No studies found