Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

243 questions · 264 findings · 26 reviews

No studies found 98 · 37.1%GRADE not reported 85 · 32.2%Very low 42 · 15.9%Low 21 · 8%Moderate 14 · 5.3%High 4 · 1.5%

Maxillary distraction osteogenesis vs Orthognathic surgery (conventional Le Fort I osteotomy)

Midfacial soft tissue changes (facial profile landmarks: pronasale, subnasale, stomion superius, labrale superius) · Adolescents or adults (15 years or older) with an established diagnosis of complete cleft lip and alveolar process, or complete unilateral…

Maxillary distraction osteogenesis showed no clear difference in midfacial soft tissue changes (facial profile landmarks: pronasale,… compared with orthognathic surgery (conventional Le Fort I osteotomy); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Maxillary distraction osteogenesis vs Orthognathic surgery (conventional Le Fort I osteotomy)

Velopharyngeal function (complete velopharyngeal closure; deterioration/improvement) · Adolescents or adults (15 years or older) with an established diagnosis of complete cleft lip and alveolar process, or complete unilateral…

It is very uncertain whether maxillary distraction osteogenesis changes velopharyngeal function (complete velopharyngeal closure;… compared with orthognathic surgery (conventional Le Fort I osteotomy) (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Maxillary distraction osteogenesis vs Orthognathic surgery (conventional Le Fort I osteotomy)

Psychological status: satisfaction with life (Satisfaction With Life Scale, SWLS) · Adolescents or adults (15 years or older) with an established diagnosis of complete cleft lip and alveolar process, or complete unilateral…

It is very uncertain whether maxillary distraction osteogenesis changes psychological status: satisfaction with life (Satisfaction With Life… compared with orthognathic surgery (conventional Le Fort I osteotomy) (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Maxillary distraction osteogenesis vs Orthognathic surgery (conventional Le Fort I osteotomy)

Maxillary advancement (midfacial hard tissue change; Subspinale A-point) · Adolescents or adults (15 years or older) with an established diagnosis of complete cleft lip and alveolar process, or complete unilateral…

It is very uncertain whether maxillary distraction osteogenesis changes maxillary advancement (midfacial hard tissue change; Subspinale… compared with orthognathic surgery (conventional Le Fort I osteotomy) (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Maxillary distraction osteogenesis vs Orthognathic surgery (conventional Le Fort I osteotomy)

Speech: nasal emission · Adolescents or adults (15 years or older) with an established diagnosis of complete cleft lip and alveolar process, or complete unilateral…

Maxillary distraction osteogenesis showed no clear difference in speech: nasal emission compared with orthognathic surgery (conventional Le Fort I osteotomy); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBO) following extractions vs penicillin G

Incidence of ORN · Adults with head and neck cancer undergoing curative or adjuvant radiotherapy (at risk of osteoradionecrosis of the jaws)

It is very uncertain whether hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBO) following extractions changes incidence of ORN compared with perioperative antibiotic prophylaxis (penicillin G) following… (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBO) following extractions vs penicillin G

Adverse effects · Adults with head and neck cancer undergoing curative or adjuvant radiotherapy (at risk of osteoradionecrosis of the jaws)
1 finding from 1 review

Double primary (canine and first molar) tooth extraction vs Single primary (canine) tooth extraction

Reported incidence or prevalence of root resorption of the impacted canine and/or incisors and/or first premolars · Young people aged 9 to 14 years diagnosed with one or both palatally displaced permanent maxillary canines (PDC)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Double primary (canine and first molar) tooth extraction vs Single primary (canine) tooth extraction

Incidence of eruption of the PDC into the mouth · Young people aged 9 to 14 years diagnosed with one or both palatally displaced permanent maxillary canines (PDC)

Double primary (canine and first molar) tooth extraction led to higher incidence of eruption of the PDC into the mouth compared with single primary (canine) tooth extraction; GRADE not reported.

4 findings from 1 review
Show 1 more finding

Double primary (canine and first molar) tooth extraction vs Single primary (canine) tooth extraction

Effect of severity of PDC displacement towards the midline on the proportion of successful eruptions · Young people aged 9 to 14 years diagnosed with one or both palatally displaced permanent maxillary canines (PDC)
1 finding from 1 review

Double primary (canine and first molar) tooth extraction vs Single primary (canine) tooth extraction

Incidence of successfully erupted PDC that were favourably positioned · Young people aged 9 to 14 years diagnosed with one or both palatally displaced permanent maxillary canines (PDC)

Double primary (canine and first molar) tooth extraction showed no clear difference in incidence of successfully erupted PDC that were favourably positioned compared with single primary (canine) tooth extraction; GRADE not reported.

3 findings from 1 review

Double primary (canine and first molar) tooth extraction vs Single primary (canine) tooth extraction

Any other adverse effects of the interventions, such as gingival disease and demineralisation · Young people aged 9 to 14 years diagnosed with one or both palatally displaced permanent maxillary canines (PDC)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Double primary (canine and first molar) tooth extraction vs Single primary (canine) tooth extraction

Number of participants referred for surgical exposure of the PDC · Young people aged 9 to 14 years diagnosed with one or both palatally displaced permanent maxillary canines (PDC)

It is very uncertain whether double primary (canine and first molar) tooth extraction changes number of participants referred for surgical exposure of the PDC compared with single primary (canine) tooth extraction (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Double primary (canine and first molar) tooth extraction vs Single primary (canine) tooth extraction

Costs and cost‐effectiveness · Young people aged 9 to 14 years diagnosed with one or both palatally displaced permanent maxillary canines (PDC)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Double primary (canine and first molar) tooth extraction vs Single primary (canine) tooth extraction

Reported improvement in the position of the ectopic canine measured from radiographs · Young people aged 9 to 14 years diagnosed with one or both palatally displaced permanent maxillary canines (PDC)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Double primary (canine and first molar) tooth extraction vs Single primary (canine) tooth extraction

Patient‐reported outcome measures (PROMs) · Young people aged 9 to 14 years diagnosed with one or both palatally displaced permanent maxillary canines (PDC)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Double primary (canine and first molar) tooth extraction vs Single primary (canine) tooth extraction

Time taken for the canine to erupt into the mouth · Young people aged 9 to 14 years diagnosed with one or both palatally displaced permanent maxillary canines (PDC)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Double primary (canine and first molar) tooth extraction vs Single primary (canine) tooth extraction

Overall treatment time wearing orthodontic appliances · Young people aged 9 to 14 years diagnosed with one or both palatally displaced permanent maxillary canines (PDC)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Orthodontic treatment without extraction of permanent teeth vs Orthodontic treatment involving extraction of permanent teeth

Dento-occlusal results of treatment, measured with the PAR index · Children (80% aged <= 16 years) with a Class II division 2 malocclusion (deep bite and retroclined upper front teeth)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Orthodontic treatment without extraction of permanent teeth vs Orthodontic treatment involving extraction of permanent teeth

Gingival and TMJ symptoms · Children (80% aged <= 16 years) with a Class II division 2 malocclusion (deep bite and retroclined upper front teeth)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review