Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

347 questions · 355 findings · 51 reviews

No studies found 135 · 38%GRADE not reported 45 · 12.7%Very low 90 · 25.4%Low 63 · 17.7%Moderate 15 · 4.2%High 7 · 2%

Surgical anchorage (mini-screw or mid-palatal implant) vs Conventional anchorage (headgear, transpalatal/palatal arch, etc.)

Acceptability · Patients of any age undergoing orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances and requiring anchorage (adolescents to adults up to 48-54 years)
1 finding from 1 review

Surgical anchorage (mini-screw or mid-palatal implant) vs Conventional anchorage (headgear, transpalatal/palatal arch, etc.)

Adverse events · Patients of any age undergoing orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances and requiring anchorage (adolescents to adults up to 48-54 years)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Surgical anchorage (mini-screw or mid-palatal implant) vs Conventional anchorage (headgear, transpalatal/palatal arch, etc.)

Mesiodistal movement of the upper first permanent molar · Patients of any age undergoing orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances and requiring anchorage (adolescents to adults up to 48-54 years)

Surgical anchorage (mini-screw or mid-palatal implant) probably leads to lower mesiodistal movement of the upper first permanent molar compared with conventional anchorage (headgear, transpalatal/palatal arch, etc.) (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Surgical anchorage (mini-screw or mid-palatal implant) vs Conventional anchorage (headgear, transpalatal/palatal arch, etc.)

Success or failure of the anchorage device · Patients of any age undergoing orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances and requiring anchorage (adolescents to adults up to 48-54 years)
1 finding from 1 review

Surgical anchorage (mini-screw or mid-palatal implant) vs Conventional anchorage (headgear, transpalatal/palatal arch, etc.)

Residual overjet at the end of treatment · Patients of any age undergoing orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances and requiring anchorage (adolescents to adults up to 48-54 years)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Surgical anchorage (mini-screw or mid-palatal implant) vs Conventional anchorage (headgear, transpalatal/palatal arch, etc.)

Patient discomfort · Patients of any age undergoing orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances and requiring anchorage (adolescents to adults up to 48-54 years)
1 finding from 1 review

Surgical anchorage (mini-screw or mid-palatal implant) vs Conventional anchorage (headgear, transpalatal/palatal arch, etc.)

Duration of overall treatment · Patients of any age undergoing orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances and requiring anchorage (adolescents to adults up to 48-54 years)

Surgical anchorage (mini-screw or mid-palatal implant) showed no clear difference in duration of overall treatment compared with conventional anchorage (headgear, transpalatal/palatal arch, etc.) (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Surgical anchorage (mini-screw or mid-palatal implant) vs Conventional anchorage (headgear, transpalatal/palatal arch, etc.)

Duration of space closure · Patients of any age undergoing orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances and requiring anchorage (adolescents to adults up to 48-54 years)

Surgical anchorage (mini-screw or mid-palatal implant) showed no clear difference in duration of space closure compared with conventional anchorage (headgear, transpalatal/palatal arch, etc.); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Surgical anchorage (mini-screw or mid-palatal implant) vs Conventional anchorage (headgear, transpalatal/palatal arch, etc.)

Number of visits · Patients of any age undergoing orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances and requiring anchorage (adolescents to adults up to 48-54 years)

Surgical anchorage (mini-screw or mid-palatal implant) led to higher number of visits compared with conventional anchorage (headgear, transpalatal/palatal arch, etc.); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Surgical anchorage (mini-screw or mid-palatal implant) vs Conventional anchorage (headgear, transpalatal/palatal arch, etc.)

Patient perception: pain · Patients of any age undergoing orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances and requiring anchorage (adolescents to adults up to 48-54 years)
1 finding from 1 review

Surgical anchorage (mini-screw or mid-palatal implant) vs Conventional anchorage (headgear, transpalatal/palatal arch, etc.)

Economic factors · Patients of any age undergoing orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances and requiring anchorage (adolescents to adults up to 48-54 years)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Medical or surgical intervention, or both, for gastro‐oesophageal reflux disease vs nil intervention, delayed intervention control, or placebo

Exacerbations: number of people experiencing moderate or severe exacerbations · treatment for asthma in adults and children with asthma and GORD

Medical or surgical intervention, or both, for gastro‐oesophageal… showed no clear difference in number of participants with moderate/severe acute exacerbations… compared with nil intervention, delayed intervention control, or placebo (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Medical or surgical intervention, or both, for gastro‐oesophageal reflux disease vs nil intervention, delayed intervention control, or placebo

Lung function: FEV1 mL (change from baseline) · treatment for asthma in adults and children with asthma and GORD
1 finding from 1 review

Medical or surgical intervention, or both, for gastro‐oesophageal reflux disease vs nil intervention, delayed intervention control, or placebo

Use of "rescue" medications and emergency action plans: B2 use puffs per day Duration of treatment: range 14 weeks to 24 weeks · treatment for asthma in adults and children with asthma and GORD
1 finding from 1 review

Medical or surgical intervention, or both, for gastro‐oesophageal reflux disease vs nil intervention, delayed intervention control, or placebo

Healthcare utilisation ‐ not measured · treatment for asthma in adults and children with asthma and GORD

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Surgical removal (extraction) of asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth vs Retention (conservative management) of asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth

Undesirable outcomes associated with removal (alveolar osteitis/postoperative infection, nerve injury, damage to adjacent teeth, bleeding, osteonecrosis, inflammation/infection) · Adolescents or adults with asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Surgical removal (extraction) of asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth vs Retention (conservative management) of asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth

Other pathological changes associated with retention (pericoronitis, root resorption, cyst formation, tumour formation, inflammation/infection) · Adolescents or adults with asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Surgical removal (extraction) of asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth vs Retention (conservative management) of asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth

Arch length (dental arch dimensional change) · Adolescents or adults with asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth

Surgical removal (extraction) of asymptomatic disease-free impacted… may leads to lower arch length (dimensional changes in the dental arch) compared with retention (conservative management) of asymptomatic disease-free… (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review