evidencegaps
Search

What do systematic reviews say?

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

3,032 questions · 3,358 findings · 190 reviews · Oral Health · related questions CL0289

Sort:Best matchNewestHighest certaintyDownload CSV
No studies found 599 · 17.8%GRADE not reported 1,759 · 52.4%Very low 612 · 18.2%Low 269 · 8%Moderate 107 · 3.2%High 12 · 0.4%

Hybrid Hyrax (RME) with miniscrews and Class III elastics vs Conventional Hyrax (RME) with miniscrews and Class III elastics

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

Hybrid Hyrax (RME) with miniscrews and Class III elastics showed no clear difference in overjet compared with conventional Hyrax (RME) with miniscrews and Class III elastics; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Facemask with rapid maxillary expansion (RME) vs Mini maxillary protractor

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

Facemask with rapid maxillary expansion (RME) showed no clear difference in overjet compared with mini maxillary protractor; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Facemask (RME) or modified facemask vs Other non-surgical orthodontic treatments (mini maxillary protractor, Pushing Splints, modified tandem, Reverse Forsus, reverse Twin Block, reverse chin cup, tongue appliance, Frankel III)

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

It is very uncertain whether facemask (RME) or modified facemask changes ANB compared with other non-surgical orthodontic treatments (mini maxillary… (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Pentoxifylline vs multivitamin and mineral supplement

Maximal mouth opening (interincisal distance) · People of any age with a confirmed diagnosis, by clinical examination and biopsy, of oral submucous fibrosis (OSF)
1 finding from 1 review
  • Interventions for managing oral submucous fibrosis 2024 · Cochrane All outcomes
    Rajendran 2006 (pentoxifylline 14 vs multivitamins 15): reported increased interincisal distance in the pentoxifylline group but no baseline data, so change could not be determined; excluded from meta-analysis.
    1 study · 29 participants
    GRADE not reported

Oxitard (antioxidant) vs Topical aloe vera gel

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

Oxitard (antioxidant) may leads to higher maximal mouth opening (interincisal distance) compared with aloe vera gel (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Facemask (RME) or modified facemask vs Surgically-anchored appliance (miniscrews or miniplates)

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

It is very uncertain whether facemask (RME) or modified facemask changes overjet compared with surgically-anchored appliance (miniscrews or miniplates) (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Facemask with rapid maxillary expansion (RME) vs Facemask with alternating rapid maxillary expansion and constriction (Alt-RAMEC)

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

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Occlusal splint vs No treatment or placebo (non-occlusal or transparent-foil placebo splint)

Patient discomfort · People with temporomandibular disorders (TMD)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review
  • Occlusal interventions for managing temporomandibular disorders 2024 · Cochrane All outcomes
    Listed in Summary of findings 1 as 'Not reported'; this outcome was not reported by any included study for this comparison. Discomfort was not reported in any included study across the whole review.
    0 studies
    No studies found

Facemask with rapid maxillary expansion (RME) vs Facemask with alternating rapid maxillary expansion and constriction (Alt-RAMEC)

A-Nasion perpendicular (A-NPerp) · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)

Facemask with rapid maxillary expansion (RME) led to higher A-Nasion perpendicular (A-NPerp) compared with facemask with alternating rapid maxillary expansion and constriction…; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Facemask with rapid maxillary expansion (RME) vs Tongue appliance

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

Facemask with rapid maxillary expansion (RME) showed no clear difference in ANB compared with tongue appliance; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Facemask with rapid maxillary expansion (RME) vs Modified tandem appliance

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

Facemask with rapid maxillary expansion (RME) showed no clear difference in ANB compared with modified tandem appliance; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Superelastic NiTi arch wire vs Thermoelastic NiTi arch wire

Root resorption · People receiving orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances (upper and/or lower full arch)

It is very uncertain whether superelastic NiTi arch wire changes root resorption (reduction in root length) compared with thermoelastic NiTi arch wire (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review