Search

What do systematic reviews say?

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

16 questions · 16 findings · 4 reviews · Esthetic dentistry · All outcomes

No studies found 16 · 100%GRADE not reported 0 · 0%Very low 0 · 0%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%

Er:YAG laser (erbium-doped:yttrium-aluminum-garnet) vs Placebo (placebo laser or placebo agent) or no treatment

Outcome not reported · Patients aged above 12 years with self-reported tooth hypersensitivity confirmed on clinical evaluation

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review
  • Laser therapy for dentinal hypersensitivity 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes
    We did not find any eligible study to evaluate erbium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet (Er:YAG) or carbon dioxide (CO2) laser compared with placebo/no treatment.
    0 studies
    No studies found

CO2 laser (carbon dioxide) vs Placebo (placebo laser or placebo agent) or no treatment

Outcome not reported · Patients aged above 12 years with self-reported tooth hypersensitivity confirmed on clinical evaluation

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review
  • Laser therapy for dentinal hypersensitivity 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes
    We did not find any eligible study to evaluate erbium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet (Er:YAG) or carbon dioxide (CO2) laser compared with placebo/no treatment.
    0 studies
    No studies found

A permanent restorative material or technique (e.g. amalgam; glass ionomer (type I-IV); composite resin (macrofilled, microfilled, hybrid, nanofilled); resin-modified glass ionomer (compomer, giomer); cement/cermet; stainless steel or nickel-chrome crown; pre-fabricated resin/porcelain veneer facing; microabrasion) vs A different permanent restorative material or technique

Outcome not reported · Children and adolescents under 18 years with amelogenesis imperfecta requiring restorative care of anterior teeth, irrespective of…

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

A permanent restorative material or technique (e.g. amalgam; glass ionomer (type I-IV); composite resin (macrofilled, microfilled, hybrid, nanofilled); resin-modified glass ionomer (compomer, giomer); cement/cermet; stainless steel or nickel-chrome crown; pre-fabricated resin/porcelain veneer facing; microabrasion) vs A different permanent restorative material or technique

Outcome not reported · Children and adolescents under 18 years with amelogenesis imperfecta requiring restorative care of posterior teeth, irrespective of…

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Direct resin composite veneer vs Indirect resin composite veneer

Pain following treatment · Patients with permanent anterior teeth with intrinsic staining suitable for laminate veneer restorations

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Direct resin composite veneer vs Indirect resin composite veneer

Colour match (aesthetic achievement) · Patients with permanent anterior teeth with intrinsic staining suitable for laminate veneer restorations

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review