What do systematic reviews say?

486 questions · 503 findings · 36 reviews · Oral and maxillofacial surgery · related questions CL0289

Sort:Best matchNewestHighest certainty Download CSV

No studies found 116 · 23.1%GRADE not reported 303 · 60.2%Very low 66 · 13.1%Low 12 · 2.4%Moderate 2 · 0.4%High 4 · 0.8%

Arthrocentesis and lavage vs Arthroscopy

Trismus / maximum mouth opening (mean) · Adults with temporomandibular joint disorders (internal derangement; anterior disc displacement with or without reduction) whose symptoms…

Arthrocentesis and lavage led to lower maximum incisal (mouth) opening (MIO) compared with arthroscopy; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Arthrocentesis and lavage for treating temporomandibular joint disorders 2009 · Cochrane All outcomes
6 to 24 months (Fridrich); 12 months (Goudot)
MD -5.28 [-7.10, -3.46]
2 studies · 81 participants
GRADE not reported

Resorbable (bioresorbable) plates or screws for fixation vs Titanium plates or screws for fixation

Healing and union of fracture (versus mal-union and non-union) · Adults over 18 years of age with fractures of the facial skeleton including the mandible, maxilla, zygoma (malar); studies on fractures of…

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Resorbable versus titanium plates for facial fractures 2009 · Cochrane All outcomes
Up to 3 years postoperatively
Planned primary outcome not assessed: none of the retrieved studies met the inclusion criteria, so no data were available for analysis. Verbatim (Effects of interventions): "Although 53 studies were retrieved in our…
0 studies
No studies found

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

Interventions for central giant cell granuloma (CGCG) of the jaws 2009 · Cochrane All outcomes
no estimate extracted
0 studies
No studies found

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

Interventions for central giant cell granuloma (CGCG) of the jaws 2009 · Cochrane All outcomes
no estimate extracted
0 studies
No studies found

Arthrocentesis and lavage vs Arthroscopy

Improvement in pain (proportion of participants improved/healed) · Adults with temporomandibular joint disorders (internal derangement; anterior disc displacement with or without reduction) whose symptoms…

Arthrocentesis and lavage showed no clear difference in improvement in pain (proportion of participants improved/healed) compared with arthroscopy; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Arthrocentesis and lavage for treating temporomandibular joint disorders 2009 · Cochrane All outcomes
1 year
RR 1.09 [0.87, 1.38]
1 study · 62 participants
GRADE not reported

Minimal incision palatopharyngoplasty (MIPP) vs MIPP with additional individualised velopharyngeal surgery (pharyngeal flap or sphincter pharyngoplasty)

Instrumental assessment: nasalance score (nasometry and pressure-flow measure) · Children or adolescents aged 3 years or older with velopharyngeal insufficiency (VPI) associated with non-syndromic submucous cleft palate

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions for the management of submucous cleft palate 2008 · Cochrane All outcomes
Nasalance score by nasometry and pressure-flow measure: the single included trial (Ysunza 2001) provided no data for this outcome.
0 studies
No studies found

Minimal incision palatopharyngoplasty (MIPP) vs MIPP with additional individualised velopharyngeal surgery (pharyngeal flap or sphincter pharyngoplasty)

Self-esteem (Piers-Harris self-concept scale) · Children or adolescents aged 3 years or older with velopharyngeal insufficiency (VPI) associated with non-syndromic submucous cleft palate

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions for the management of submucous cleft palate 2008 · Cochrane All outcomes
No data were available for this patient-reported outcome in the single included trial.
0 studies
No studies found

Minimal incision palatopharyngoplasty (MIPP) vs MIPP with additional individualised velopharyngeal surgery (pharyngeal flap or sphincter pharyngoplasty)

Instrumental assessment: velopharyngeal complete closure and gap size (videonasopharyngoscopy and multiview videofluoroscopy) · Children or adolescents aged 3 years or older with velopharyngeal insufficiency (VPI) associated with non-syndromic submucous cleft palate

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions for the management of submucous cleft palate 2008 · Cochrane All outcomes
3 months post-operatively
Complete closure occurred in 32 (86%) of the participants in group 1 (MIPP) and in 31 (89%) in group 2, P > 0.05. After eliminating the nine patients with residual velopharyngeal insufficiency, the post-operative gap…
1 study · 72 participants
GRADE not reported

Minimal incision palatopharyngoplasty (MIPP) vs MIPP with additional individualised velopharyngeal surgery (pharyngeal flap or sphincter pharyngoplasty)

Perceptual speech assessment: residual post-operative velopharyngeal insufficiency · Children or adolescents aged 3 years or older with velopharyngeal insufficiency (VPI) associated with non-syndromic submucous cleft palate

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions for the management of submucous cleft palate 2008 · Cochrane All outcomes
3 months post-operatively
Five (14%) of the participants in group 1 (MIPP) and four (11%) in group 2 had residual post-operative velopharyngeal insufficiency, P > 0.05. The report provided no details on post-operative speech assessment other…
1 study · 72 participants
GRADE not reported

Oral paracetamol vs placebo

At least 50% reduction in pain · Patients requiring surgical removal of a lower wisdom tooth or teeth, with baseline moderate to severe pain (surgery under local…

Paracetamol (single oral dose, any dose or formulation; subgroups up… led to higher achieving at least 50% pain relief at 4 hours (using pain intensity… compared with placebo; GRADE not reported.

3 findings from 1 review

Paracetamol for pain relief after surgical removal of lower wisdom teeth 2007 · Cochrane All outcomes
4 hours
RR 4.87 [2.83, 8.37]
17 studies · 1658 participants
GRADE not reported
Paracetamol for pain relief after surgical removal of lower wisdom teeth 2007 · Cochrane All outcomes
6 hours
RR 3.41 [2.34, 4.97]
13 studies · 1184 participants
GRADE not reported
Paracetamol for pain relief after surgical removal of lower wisdom teeth 2007 · Cochrane All outcomes
4 hours
RR 2.85 [1.89, 4.29]
16 studies · 1498 participants
GRADE not reported

Oral paracetamol vs placebo

Participant‐reported pain relief of 50% or greater · Patients requiring surgical removal of a lower wisdom tooth or teeth, with baseline moderate to severe pain (surgery under local…

Paracetamol (single oral dose, any dose or formulation; subgroups up… led to higher achieving at least 50% pain relief at 6 hours (using pain relief… compared with placebo; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Paracetamol for pain relief after surgical removal of lower wisdom teeth 2007 · Cochrane All outcomes
6 hours
RR 3.32 [1.88, 5.87]
13 studies · 1155 participants
GRADE not reported

Stabilisation splint (SS) vs minimal treatment

Pain (severity/palpation; PSS, PPI, VAS) · Patients with pain dysfunction syndrome (PDS) of all degrees of severity

Stabilisation splint (SS) led to lower pain (severity/palpation; PSS, PPI, VAS) compared with minimal/no treatment; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Stabilisation splint therapy for temporomandibular pain dysfunction syndrome 2004 · Cochrane All outcomes
3 months or less
MD -3.20 [-4.81, -1.59]
4 studies
GRADE not reported

Stabilisation splint (SS) vs Jaw exercises

TMJ clicking · Patients with pain dysfunction syndrome (PDS) of all degrees of severity

1 finding from 1 review

Stabilisation splint therapy for temporomandibular pain dysfunction syndrome 2004 · Cochrane All outcomes
up to 6 months
SS vs jaw exercises (Magnusson 1999): TMJ clicking at 3 months and greater than 3 months; no statistically significant between-group difference. Forest-plot data presented, totals not pooled.
1 study
GRADE not reported

Stabilisation splint (SS) vs Visual feedback

Movement (lateral mandibular movement) · Patients with pain dysfunction syndrome (PDS) of all degrees of severity

1 finding from 1 review

Stabilisation splint therapy for temporomandibular pain dysfunction syndrome 2004 · Cochrane All outcomes
3 months or less
SS vs visual feedback (Monteiro 1988): both SS and visual feedback groups showed a significant decrease in lateral mandibular movement scores (P<0.01); data were unavailable for analysis.
1 study
GRADE not reported

Stabilisation splint (SS) vs Bite plates

Helkimo clinical dysfunction index · Patients with pain dysfunction syndrome (PDS) of all degrees of severity

Stabilisation splint (SS) showed no clear difference in helkimo dysfunction score compared with bite plates; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Stabilisation splint therapy for temporomandibular pain dysfunction syndrome 2004 · Cochrane All outcomes
3 months or less
RR 0.68 [0.20, 2.23]
1 study
GRADE not reported

Stabilisation splint (SS) vs acupuncture

Movement (deviation and range of mouth opening) · Patients with pain dysfunction syndrome (PDS) of all degrees of severity

Stabilisation splint (SS) led to lower movement (deviation and range of mouth opening) compared with acupuncture; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Stabilisation splint therapy for temporomandibular pain dysfunction syndrome 2004 · Cochrane All outcomes
3 months or less
RR 0.55 [0.35, 0.84]
1 study
GRADE not reported

Stabilisation splint (SS) vs minimal treatment

Depressive symptoms · Patients with pain dysfunction syndrome (PDS) of all degrees of severity

Stabilisation splint (SS) led to lower depression (CES-D, POMS) compared with minimal/no treatment; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Stabilisation splint therapy for temporomandibular pain dysfunction syndrome 2004 · Cochrane All outcomes
3 months or less
MD -3.90 [-6.29, -1.52]
1 study
GRADE not reported

Stabilisation splint (SS) vs acupuncture

Helkimo clinical dysfunction index · Patients with pain dysfunction syndrome (PDS) of all degrees of severity

1 finding from 1 review

Stabilisation splint therapy for temporomandibular pain dysfunction syndrome 2004 · Cochrane All outcomes
3 months or less
SS vs acupuncture (Johansson 1991): Helkimo clinical dysfunction score decreased significantly in both groups (P<0.01) with no significant between-group difference; data not available for a pooled estimate.
1 study
GRADE not reported

Stabilisation splint (SS) vs acupuncture

TMJ clicking · Patients with pain dysfunction syndrome (PDS) of all degrees of severity

Stabilisation splint (SS) showed no clear difference in TMJ clicking compared with acupuncture; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Stabilisation splint therapy for temporomandibular pain dysfunction syndrome 2004 · Cochrane All outcomes
3 months or less
RR 1.00 [0.56, 1.78]
1 study
GRADE not reported

Stabilisation splint (SS) vs Biofeedback/stress management

Treatment credibility · Patients with pain dysfunction syndrome (PDS) of all degrees of severity

Stabilisation splint (SS) showed no clear difference in treatment credibility compared with biofeedback/stress management; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Stabilisation splint therapy for temporomandibular pain dysfunction syndrome 2004 · Cochrane All outcomes
3 months or less
MD -0.10 [-0.69, 0.49]
1 study
GRADE not reported