Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

291 questions · 362 findings · 29 reviews · All outcomes

No studies found 86 · 23.8%GRADE not reported 207 · 57.2%Very low 48 · 13.3%Low 7 · 1.9%Moderate 7 · 1.9%High 7 · 1.9%

Visual screening (oral visual inspection) by trained health workers vs No screening

Test performance (sensitivity and specificity) · Apparently healthy adults aged 35 years or older (general population), living in 13 clusters in rural areas of Trivandrum city, Kerala,…
1 finding from 1 review

Interdental brushing plus toothbrushing vs Flossing plus toothbrushing

Side effects · Adults, 16 years and older (dentate)
1 finding from 1 review · compare the 2 reviews

Interdental brushing plus toothbrushing vs Toothbrushing alone

Plaque · Adults, 16 years and older (dentate)

It is very uncertain whether interdental brushing plus toothbrushing changes plaque (Quigley & Hein plaque index, Turesky modification; scale 0… compared with toothbrushing alone (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review · compare the 2 reviews

Visual screening (oral visual inspection) by trained health workers vs No screening

Survival (proportion alive after diagnosis) · Apparently healthy adults aged 35 years or older (general population), living in 13 clusters in rural areas of Trivandrum city, Kerala,…
1 finding from 1 review

Interdental brushing plus toothbrushing vs Flossing plus toothbrushing

Periodontitis (clinical attachment loss) · Adults, 16 years and older (dentate)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Vertical ramus osteotomy (VRO) with osteosynthesis vs Vertical ramus osteotomy (VRO) without osteosynthesis

Changes in condyle position: fossa-condyle relations for anterior (1 year post-operative) · Adults (16 years of age or older) with an Angle Class III malocclusion (prominent lower front teeth); people with syndromes, clefts or…

Vertical ramus osteotomy (VRO) with osteosynthesis showed no clear difference in changes in condyle position: fossa-condyle relations for anterior (1… compared with vertical ramus osteotomy (VRO) without osteosynthesis; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Vertical ramus osteotomy (VRO) with osteosynthesis vs Vertical ramus osteotomy (VRO) without osteosynthesis

Changes in condyle position: fossa-condyle relations for posterior (1 year post-operative) · Adults (16 years of age or older) with an Angle Class III malocclusion (prominent lower front teeth); people with syndromes, clefts or…

Vertical ramus osteotomy (VRO) with osteosynthesis showed no clear difference in changes in condyle position: fossa-condyle relations for posterior… compared with vertical ramus osteotomy (VRO) without osteosynthesis; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Intraoral vertical ramus osteotomy (IVRO) vs Sagittal split ramus osteotomy (SSRO)

Stability of correction: vertical changes of pogonion (1 week to 1 year) · Adults (16 years of age or older) with an Angle Class III malocclusion (prominent lower front teeth); people with syndromes, clefts or…

Intraoral vertical ramus osteotomy (IVRO) showed no clear difference in stability of correction: vertical changes of pogonion (1 week to 1… compared with sagittal split ramus osteotomy (SSRO); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Any orthodontic and/or surgical treatment for Angle Class III malocclusion vs no intervention or another intervention

Correction of prominent lower front teeth / effectiveness of treatment (planned primary outcome) · Adults (16 years of age or older) with an Angle Class III malocclusion (prominent lower front teeth); people with syndromes, clefts or…

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review
  • No included study measured the planned primary outcome. Discussion: 'The primary outcome proposed for this review was to evaluate the effectiveness of treatments for prognathism, but none of the studies conclusively…
    Studies not reported
    No studies found

Intraoral vertical ramus osteotomy (IVRO) vs Sagittal split ramus osteotomy (SSRO)

Stability of correction: sagittal changes of B-point (1 week to 1 year) · Adults (16 years of age or older) with an Angle Class III malocclusion (prominent lower front teeth); people with syndromes, clefts or…

Intraoral vertical ramus osteotomy (IVRO) showed no clear difference in stability of correction: sagittal changes of B-point (1 week to 1… compared with sagittal split ramus osteotomy (SSRO); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Intraoral vertical ramus osteotomy (IVRO) vs Sagittal split ramus osteotomy (SSRO)

Stability of correction: sagittal changes of pogonion (1 week to 1 year) · Adults (16 years of age or older) with an Angle Class III malocclusion (prominent lower front teeth); people with syndromes, clefts or…

Intraoral vertical ramus osteotomy (IVRO) showed no clear difference in stability of correction: sagittal changes of pogonion (1 week to 1… compared with sagittal split ramus osteotomy (SSRO); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Intraoral vertical ramus osteotomy (IVRO) vs Sagittal split ramus osteotomy (SSRO)

Stability of correction: vertical changes of B-point (1 week to 1 year) · Adults (16 years of age or older) with an Angle Class III malocclusion (prominent lower front teeth); people with syndromes, clefts or…

Intraoral vertical ramus osteotomy (IVRO) showed no clear difference in stability of correction: vertical changes of B-point (1 week to 1… compared with sagittal split ramus osteotomy (SSRO); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Orthodontic treatment with appliances inducing stable, permanent orthodontic tooth movement (splints worn 8 to 12 weeks and surgical interventions excluded) vs Control: no treatment, placebo, or reassurance

Patient quality of life · Adults aged 18 years or older with clinically diagnosed TMD (exhibiting two or more of the listed signs and/or symptoms)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Orthodontic treatment with appliances inducing stable, permanent orthodontic tooth movement (splints worn 8 to 12 weeks and surgical interventions excluded) vs Control: no treatment, placebo, or reassurance

Adverse effects on oral health · Adults aged 18 years or older with clinically diagnosed TMD (exhibiting two or more of the listed signs and/or symptoms)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Screening for domestic violence vs Different screening tool

Proportion of victims of domestic violence detected by self report · Adults (16 years of age and older) who present to any healthcare setting with dental or facial injury

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Orthodontic treatment with appliances inducing stable, permanent orthodontic tooth movement (splints worn 8 to 12 weeks and surgical interventions excluded) vs Control: no treatment, placebo, or reassurance

Limitation of movement · Adults aged 18 years or older with clinically diagnosed TMD (exhibiting two or more of the listed signs and/or symptoms)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Screening for domestic violence vs No screening

Proportion of victims of domestic violence detected by self report · Adults (16 years of age and older) who present to any healthcare setting with dental or facial injury

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review