Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

108 questions · 120 findings · 12 reviews · Oral Health

No studies found 42 · 35%GRADE not reported 46 · 38.3%Very low 24 · 20%Low 5 · 4.2%Moderate 3 · 2.5%High 0 · 0%

Antimicrobial lozenge vs placebo

Dry mouth (xerostomia) · Patients receiving radiotherapy on its own or in addition to chemotherapy to the head and neck region

Antimicrobial lozenge showed no clear difference in xerostomia compared with placebo; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Antimicrobial lozenge vs placebo

Quality of life and other oral related symptoms · Patients receiving radiotherapy on its own or in addition to chemotherapy to the head and neck region
1 finding from 1 review

Antimicrobial lozenge vs placebo

Side effects (other: dryness in mouth, diarrhoea, constipation) · Patients receiving radiotherapy on its own or in addition to chemotherapy to the head and neck region
1 finding from 1 review

Antimicrobial coolant A (chlorhexidine) vs povidone‐iodine

Reduction in level of contamination in aerosols (CFU): chlorhexidine vs povidone iodine coolant during ultrasonic scaling · People undergoing aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs) in a dental setting

It is very uncertain whether antimicrobial coolant A (chlorhexidine) changes reduction in level of contamination in aerosols (CFU): chlorhexidine… compared with antimicrobial coolant B (povidone iodine) (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Antimicrobial coolant A (chlorhexidine) vs Antimicrobial coolant B (cinnamon extract)

Reduction in level of contamination in aerosols (CFU): chlorhexidine vs cinnamon extract coolant during ultrasonic scaling · People undergoing aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs) in a dental setting

It is very uncertain whether antimicrobial coolant A (chlorhexidine) changes reduction in level of contamination in aerosols (CFU): chlorhexidine… compared with antimicrobial coolant B (cinnamon extract) (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (PDT) vs No photodynamic therapy (untreated negative control)

Microbial reduction (viable count, log CFU/mL) · Patients with dental caries (in vivo cariogenic microorganisms, including children with early childhood caries)

In randomized clinical trials, photodynamic therapy significantly reduced cariogenic microbial counts versus untreated control (SMD -1.16, 95% CI -2.02 to -0.30; 2 trials), but heterogeneity was high (I2=70%) and considered too high to rely on; certainty was not graded.

1 finding from 1 review

Antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (PDT) vs No photodynamic therapy (untreated negative control)

Microbial reduction (viable count, log CFU/mL) · Cariogenic bacteria (mainly Streptococcus mutans reference strains) and oral biofilms in vitro

In in vitro studies, photodynamic therapy significantly reduced cariogenic microbial counts versus untreated control (SMD -2.64, 95% CI -4.50 to -0.79; 2 studies; I2=0%); certainty was not graded.

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

Quality of life · Adults (> 18 years) with peri-implant mucositis, receiving active treatment

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

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

Change in gingival recession (REC) · Adults (> 18 years) with peri-implant mucositis, receiving active treatment

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

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-implant mucositis, receiving supportive treatment

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

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

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

Change in probing pocket depth (PPD) · Adults (> 18 years) with peri-implant mucositis, receiving active treatment

Adjunctive antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) applied after… showed no clear difference in change in probing depth (PD/PPD) compared with submucosal instrumentation (SI) alone, or SI plus placebo/sham aPDT; GRADE not reported.

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 supportive treatment

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

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

Patient satisfaction · Adults (> 18 years) with peri-implant mucositis, receiving active treatment

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

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

Any adverse effect related to aPDT · Adults (> 18 years) with peri-implant mucositis, receiving active treatment

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

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

Pocket closure · Adults (> 18 years) with peri-implant mucositis, receiving active treatment

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

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

Attachment change · Adults (> 18 years) with peri-implant mucositis, receiving active treatment

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review