evidencegaps
Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

3,556 questions · 10,375 findings · 429 reviews · Oral Health

Sort:Best matchNewestHighest certaintyDownload CSV
No studies found 1,344 · 13%GRADE not reported 6,832 · 65.9%Very low 1,228 · 11.8%Low 613 · 5.9%Moderate 290 · 2.8%High 68 · 0.7%

Ranked among the 5,000 newest matching findings; add words or filters to narrow the search.

M2 Demirjian stages F-G vs Second molar at Demirjian stage D-E at extraction

Spontaneous space closure · Children and adolescents after extraction of a mandibular permanent first molar (before eruption of the second molar)

In the mandible, Demirjian stage F-G vs D-E was not significantly associated with space closure (OR 0.68; not GRADE-rated).

1 finding from 1 review

Superelastic NiTi arch wire vs Conventional (stabilised) NiTi arch wire

Pain day 1 · People receiving orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances (upper and/or lower full arch)

Superelastic NiTi arch wire showed no clear difference in pain day 1 compared with conventional (stabilised) NiTi arch wire (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Occlusal splint vs Another occlusal splint with a different mechanism of action

Joint pain at rest · People with temporomandibular disorders (TMD)

It is very uncertain whether occlusal splint changes joint pain at rest compared with another occlusal splint with a different mechanism of action (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

TT+CC (homozygous) genotypes vs TC (heterozygous) genotype

Dental caries · Children (<18 years) with vs without dental caries

In the Real-time quantitative PCR genotyping subgroup, TaqI(rs731236) over-dominant model: TT+CC vs TC showed a significant association with caries (OR 1.52); ungraded.

8 findings from 1 review
Show 5 more findings

Bone-anchored intermaxillary traction (BAIMT) vs Removable mandibular retractor (RMR)

Adverse effects / patient-reported (pain, self-confidence) · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)
1 finding from 1 review

CO2 laser (carbon dioxide) vs No anticaries intervention (untreated enamel)

Enamel surface / cross-sectional microhardness · Human / bovine enamel specimens under cariogenic challenge (in situ / ex vivo)

CO2 laser irradiation changes enamel microhardness versus untreated enamel (MD 49.55, CI 37.74 to 61.37; ungraded, 3 ex-vivo studies, I2=48%); the forest plot shows higher microhardness in laser-treated enamel, although the review text states the opposite.

1 finding from 1 review

Prenatal vitamin D deficiency (low maternal 25(OH)D during pregnancy) vs Adequate prenatal vitamin D (sufficient maternal 25(OH)D)

Dental caries in children · Children aged 6 to 8 years whose mothers' prenatal vitamin D status was assessed

In the single study of children aged 6-8 years, the association was not statistically significant (OR 1.07, 95% CI 0.84-1.30); ungraded.

1 finding from 1 review

Adjunctive antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) applied after submucosal instrumentation (SI) vs Submucosal instrumentation (SI) alone, or SI plus placebo/sham aPDT

Outcome not reported · Adults (> 18 years) with peri-implantitis, receiving active treatment

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Levamisole vs Antioxidant (Antoxid)

Maximal mouth opening (interincisal distance) · People of any age with a confirmed diagnosis, by clinical examination and biopsy, of oral submucous fibrosis (OSF)

It is very uncertain whether levamisole changes maximal mouth opening (interincisal distance) compared with antioxidant (Antoxid) (very low certainty).

2 findings from 1 review

Antioxidants (lycopene, curcumin, Oxitard) vs Placebo or no active treatment

Burning sensation (VAS 0-100) · People of any age with a confirmed diagnosis, by clinical examination and biopsy, of oral submucous fibrosis (OSF)

Antioxidants (lycopene, curcumin, Oxitard) probably leads to lower burning sensation (VAS 0-100) compared with placebo or no active treatment (moderate certainty).

3 findings from 1 review

Facemask after Alt-RAMEC vs Facemask started simultaneously with Alt-RAMEC

ANB · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)

Facemask after Alt-RAMEC showed no clear difference in ANB compared with facemask started simultaneously with Alt-RAMEC; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Gene sequencing (GS) applied to diagnose/manage oral conditions (predominantly 16S rRNA next-generation sequencing of the oral microbiome; also genome-wide/whole-genome sequencing) vs Negligible ('abysmal') effect of gene sequencing; no separate comparator arm (within-sample event contrast in the forest plots)

Noticeable impact of gene sequencing on diagnosing/managing oral conditions · Human patients (any age) with oral-cavity related disorders (e.g. dental caries, periodontitis, gingivitis, peri-implant mucositis,…

Pooled across 8 clinical trials, gene sequencing had a statistically significant impact on diagnosing/managing oral-cavity disorders (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.46-0.54); certainty not GRADE-rated.

2 findings from 1 review

Single preoperative dose of systemic antibiotics (clindamycin 600 mg), total chemo-mechanical debridement and root filling vs Matched placebo, total chemo-mechanical debridement and root filling

Pain at 48 hours · Adults with symptomatic apical periodontitis (no signs of spreading infection or systemic involvement)
1 finding from 1 review

Antioxidants (lycopene, curcumin, Oxitard) vs Placebo or no active treatment

Maximal mouth opening (interincisal distance) · People of any age with a confirmed diagnosis, by clinical examination and biopsy, of oral submucous fibrosis (OSF)

Antioxidants (lycopene, curcumin, Oxitard) showed no clear difference in maximal mouth opening (interincisal distance) compared with placebo or no active treatment (low certainty).

3 findings from 1 review