evidencegaps
Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

1,333 questions · 1,344 findings · 217 reviews · All outcomes

Sort:Best matchNewestHighest certaintyDownload CSV
No studies found 1,344 · 100%GRADE not reported 0 · 0%Very low 0 · 0%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%

Single full-coverage metal-ceramic crown over composite core and post vs Direct adhesive composite restoration with post (conventional filling, no crown)

Incidence or recurrence of caries (assessed clinically or by radiographs) · People with a permanent tooth that has undergone endodontic (root canal) treatment

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Cessation of water fluoridation (fluoride removed from the water supply) vs Continued fluoridated water

Early childhood caries experience (mean dmft) · People of all ages in a previously fluoridated community (Maupome 2001: children with generally low caries experience)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review
  • Water fluoridation for the prevention of dental caries 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes
    No evidence to determine the effect of the cessation of water fluoridation on caries in deciduous teeth. No included study reported change in dmft following cessation.
    0 studies
    No studies found

Chlorhexidine spray vs Placebo or no intervention (including routine care)

Outcome not reported · Children and adolescents below 18 years at study start (included studies: children from birth to 15 years), with mixed, permanent or…

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Chlorhexidine toothpaste vs Placebo or no intervention (including routine care)

Outcome not reported · Children and adolescents below 18 years at study start (included studies: children from birth to 15 years), with mixed, permanent or…

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Endodontic therapy performed with one type of magnification device (surgical microscope, endoscope or magnifying loupes) vs Endodontic therapy performed with a different type of magnification device

Repair of root perforations · Patients of any age who received endodontic therapy and were followed up for at least 1 year after treatment

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review
  • Magnification devices for endodontic therapy 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes
    No included study assessed this outcome; the review notes that such secondary outcomes were only sporadically reported and were never statistically assessed.
    Studies not reported
    No studies found

Endodontic therapy (surgical or non-surgical) performed with the aid of one or more magnification devices (surgical microscope, endoscope or magnifying loupes) vs The same endodontic therapy performed without magnification devices (without visual enhancers)

Quality of visualisation of root canal anatomy and morphology · Patients of any age who received endodontic therapy and were followed up for at least 1 year after treatment

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review
  • Magnification devices for endodontic therapy 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes
    No included study assessed this outcome; the review notes that such secondary outcomes were only sporadically reported and were never statistically assessed.
    Studies not reported
    No studies found

Endodontic therapy (surgical or non-surgical) performed with the aid of one or more magnification devices (surgical microscope, endoscope or magnifying loupes) vs The same endodontic therapy performed without magnification devices (without visual enhancers)

Overall success (composite of clinical and radiographic success) · Patients of any age who received endodontic therapy and were followed up for at least 1 year after treatment

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review
  • Magnification devices for endodontic therapy 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes
    >=1 year after treatment
    None of the studies fulfilled our inclusion criteria and therefore no data analysis was conducted (three potentially eligible trials were identified from 1234 records; all were excluded).
    Studies not reported
    No studies found

Endodontic therapy performed with one type of magnification device (surgical microscope, endoscope or magnifying loupes) vs Endodontic therapy performed with a different type of magnification device

Total time required to complete the clinical procedure · Patients of any age who received endodontic therapy and were followed up for at least 1 year after treatment

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review
  • Magnification devices for endodontic therapy 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes
    No included study assessed procedure time. In the excluded trial Taschieri 2008, based on the operators' experience, completing the surgical procedure took on average four to five minutes longer for the endoscope than…
    Studies not reported
    No studies found

Endodontic therapy performed with one type of magnification device (surgical microscope, endoscope or magnifying loupes) vs Endodontic therapy performed with a different type of magnification device

Overall success (composite of clinical and radiographic success) · Patients of any age who received endodontic therapy and were followed up for at least 1 year after treatment

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review
  • Magnification devices for endodontic therapy 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes
    >=1 year after treatment
    None of the studies fulfilled our inclusion criteria; the only trial comparing three magnification devices (Taschieri 2008) was excluded, so no data analysis was conducted.
    Studies not reported
    No studies found

Barrier techniques (gloves/plasters) vs No treatment

Outcome not reported · Children with a non-nutritive sucking habit (digit or pacifier)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Endodontic therapy performed with one type of magnification device (surgical microscope, endoscope or magnifying loupes) vs Endodontic therapy performed with a different type of magnification device

Quality of visualisation of root canal anatomy and morphology · Patients of any age who received endodontic therapy and were followed up for at least 1 year after treatment

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review
  • Magnification devices for endodontic therapy 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes
    No included study assessed this outcome; the review notes that such secondary outcomes were only sporadically reported and were never statistically assessed.
    Studies not reported
    No studies found

Endodontic therapy performed with one type of magnification device (surgical microscope, endoscope or magnifying loupes) vs Endodontic therapy performed with a different type of magnification device

Removal of broken (fractured) instruments from the root canal · Patients of any age who received endodontic therapy and were followed up for at least 1 year after treatment

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review
  • Magnification devices for endodontic therapy 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes
    No included study assessed this outcome; the review notes that such secondary outcomes were only sporadically reported and were never statistically assessed.
    Studies not reported
    No studies found

Micro-invasive treatment (proximal sealing or resin infiltration) vs Conventional invasive treatment (restoration / drill and fill)

Outcome not reported · Dentate children and adults with non-cavitated proximal caries lesions extending into enamel or dentine (not pulp) in primary or permanent…

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Preformed metal crown (fitted using the Hall Technique) vs Preformed metal crown (fitted using a conventional technique)

Outcome not reported · Children with decayed primary molar teeth

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review
  • Preformed crowns for decayed primary molar teeth 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes
    None of the included studies compared the effectiveness or safety of the Hall Technique versus the conventional technique of fitting a crown. No RCT evidence found.
    0 studies
    No studies found

Any intervention for KCOT (e.g. enucleation), alone or combined with an adjunctive therapy (ostectomy, cryotherapy, or Carnoy's solution) vs A different intervention (e.g. enucleation versus marsupialisation), or the same surgical intervention without the adjunctive therapy

Outcome not reported · Adults over the age of 18 with a validated diagnosis of solitary keratocystic odontogenic tumours (KCOT) arising in the jaw bones of the…

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Chlorhexidine varnish vs placebo or no treatment

Pain, quality of life, patient satisfaction or costs · Children and adolescents below 18 years at study start (included studies: children from birth to 15 years), with mixed, permanent or…

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Oral cryotherapy (ice chips, ice-cold water, ice cubes or crushed ice held in the mouth during cancer treatment) vs no intervention or control intervention (control)

Normalcy of diet (total parenteral nutrition) · All patients with cancer who are receiving treatment

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Oral cryotherapy (ice chips, ice-cold water, ice cubes or crushed ice held in the mouth during cancer treatment) vs no intervention or control intervention (control)

Number of days unable to take medicine orally · All patients with cancer who are receiving treatment

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review