Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

449 questions · 486 findings · 74 reviews

No studies found 34 · 7%GRADE not reported 73 · 15%Very low 127 · 26.1%Low 158 · 32.5%Moderate 69 · 14.2%High 25 · 5.1%

Secondary alveolar bone grafting performed at one timing (e.g. early secondary grafting) vs Secondary alveolar bone grafting performed at a different / optimal timing (e.g. late secondary grafting)

Outcome not reported · Patients greater than 5 years of age with unilateral or bilateral cleft lip and/or palate involving the alveolar process (complete or…

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Early treatment (two-phase: phase 1 in childhood, phase 2 in adolescence) with functional appliance vs Late treatment (one-phase in adolescence) with functional appliance

Self concept · Children (7 to 11 years) and adolescents (12 to 16 years) with prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion)

Early treatment (two-phase: phase 1 in childhood, phase 2 in… showed no clear difference in self concept compared with late treatment (one-phase in adolescence) with functional appliance; GRADE not reported.

2 findings from 1 review

Early treatment (two-phase: phase 1 in childhood, phase 2 in adolescence) with functional appliance vs Late treatment (one-phase in adolescence) with functional appliance

Incidence of new incisal trauma · Children (7 to 11 years) and adolescents (12 to 16 years) with prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion)

Early treatment (two-phase: phase 1 in childhood, phase 2 in… probably leads to lower incidence of new incisal trauma compared with late treatment (one-phase in adolescence) with functional appliance (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Early treatment (two-phase: phase 1 in childhood, phase 2 in adolescence) with functional appliance vs Late treatment (one-phase in adolescence) with functional appliance

Final overjet · Children (7 to 11 years) and adolescents (12 to 16 years) with prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion)

Early treatment (two-phase: phase 1 in childhood, phase 2 in… led to lower final overjet compared with late treatment (one-phase in adolescence) with functional appliance; GRADE not reported.

2 findings from 1 review

Early treatment (two-phase: phase 1 in childhood, phase 2 in adolescence) with functional appliance vs Late treatment (one-phase in adolescence) with functional appliance

Final ANB · Children (7 to 11 years) and adolescents (12 to 16 years) with prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion)

Early treatment (two-phase: phase 1 in childhood, phase 2 in… led to lower final ANB compared with late treatment (one-phase in adolescence) with functional appliance; GRADE not reported.

2 findings from 1 review

Early treatment (two-phase: phase 1 in childhood, phase 2 in adolescence) with functional appliance vs Late treatment (one-phase in adolescence) with functional appliance

Incidence of incisal trauma · Children (7 to 11 years) and adolescents (12 to 16 years) with prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion)

Early treatment (two-phase: phase 1 in childhood, phase 2 in… showed no clear difference in incidence of incisal trauma compared with late treatment (one-phase in adolescence) with functional appliance; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Early treatment (two-phase: phase 1 in childhood, phase 2 in adolescence) with functional appliance vs Late treatment (one-phase in adolescence) with functional appliance

PAR score · Children (7 to 11 years) and adolescents (12 to 16 years) with prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion)

Early treatment (two-phase: phase 1 in childhood, phase 2 in… led to lower PAR score compared with late treatment (one-phase in adolescence) with functional appliance; GRADE not reported.

2 findings from 1 review