Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

12 questions · 12 findings · 9 reviews · Oral Health

No studies found 6 · 50%GRADE not reported 5 · 41.7%Very low 1 · 8.3%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%

Traditional screening (referral card given if the inspecting dentist judges the child needs to see a dentist) vs No screening

Cost‐effectiveness · School children (aged 4 to 15 years), primary and secondary schools in the UK and India

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Zygomatic implants without bone grafts (as a complete alternative to any bone augmentation procedure) vs Conventional dental implants in augmented maxillae

Cost‐effectiveness · Participants with an atrophic maxilla who cannot be rehabilitated with conventional dental implants due to lack of bone (including…

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Hyperbaric oxygen vs No HBO therapy

Cost‐effectiveness · Patients who have had radiotherapy and who have missing teeth that require replacement with osseointegrated dental implants

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

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

Extraction of the primary (baby) canine (single primary tooth extraction) vs No extraction (non-intervention control)

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

Selective carious tissue removal (selective excavation, SE) vs Stepwise carious tissue removal (SW)

Efficiency, costs or cost-effectiveness · Children and/or adults with permanent or primary teeth, vital (sensitive) pulps, and cavitated or dentine carious lesions conventionally…
1 finding from 1 review

Non-selective carious tissue removal and conventional restoration (CR) vs Hall Technique (sealing with a preformed metal crown)

Efficiency, costs or cost-effectiveness · Children and/or adults with permanent or primary teeth, vital (sensitive) pulps, and cavitated or dentine carious lesions conventionally…
1 finding from 1 review

Hall technique vs Non-restorative cavity control (NRCC)

Efficiency, costs or cost-effectiveness · Children and/or adults with permanent or primary teeth, vital (sensitive) pulps, and cavitated or dentine carious lesions conventionally…
1 finding from 1 review

Fee‐for‐service (FFS) vs no intervention or control intervention (control)

Healthcare costs: cost-effectiveness of fee-for-service vs control (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, reported as % change in outcome per GBP; currency year NR) · Dentists seeing children with erupted second permanent molars (Scotland, in areas representing the four most deprived categories out of…
1 finding from 1 review