Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

582 questions · 642 findings · 67 reviews · Oral Health

No studies found 173 · 26.9%GRADE not reported 298 · 46.4%Very low 121 · 18.8%Low 35 · 5.5%Moderate 15 · 2.3%High 0 · 0%

Immediate implants (placed in a fresh extraction socket just after tooth extraction) vs Delayed implants (placed at least 2 months after extraction)

Prosthesis failure · Patients with compromised teeth to be extracted who require single dental implants in fresh postextraction sockets

Immediate implants (placed in a fresh extraction socket just after… showed no clear difference in prosthesis failure compared with delayed implants (placed at least 2 months after extraction, in…; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Immediate-delayed implants (placed within 8 weeks after tooth extraction) vs Delayed implants (placed at least 2 months after extraction)

Prosthesis failure · Patients with compromised teeth to be extracted who require single dental implants in fresh postextraction sockets

Immediate-delayed implants (placed within 8 weeks after tooth… led to lower prosthesis failure compared with delayed implants (placed at least 2 months after extraction); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Hypnosis vs Inhalation sedation with nitrous oxide and oxygen

Measures of behaviour / negative responses during local anaesthesia administration · Children aged 10 to 16 years undergoing orthodontic extractions (Braithwaite 2005)
1 finding from 1 review
  • Hypnosis can control some of the patient's negative responses to dental treatment, such as movement and behaviour, during administration of local anaesthesia. (Braithwaite 2005; single-blind cross-over, 10 patients…
    1 study · 10 participants
    GRADE not reported

Bio-Oss (anorganic bovine bone) vs Bovine-derived xenograft (Bio-Oss) plus resorbable barrier

Augmentation (prosthesis/implant) failure · Patients receiving immediate single implants in fresh extraction sockets (maxillary anterior/premolar sites)

Bio-Oss (anorganic bovine bone) led to lower augmentation (prosthesis/implant) failure compared with bio-Oss + resorbable barrier; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Two-stage sinus lift + buccal onlay iliac grafts WITH platelet-rich plasma (PRP) vs Same grafts WITHOUT PRP (split-mouth)

Implant/prosthesis failure and complications · Patients with resorbed maxillae (incl. atrophic sinuses) needing implants
1 finding from 1 review

1-stage (non-submerged) implant placement vs 2-stage (submerged) implant placement

Prosthesis failure · People with dental implants

1-stage (non-submerged) implant placement showed no clear difference in prosthesis failure compared with 2-stage (submerged) implant placement (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Autogenous bone block from the chin + resorbable barrier vs Bovine-derived xenograft (Bio-Oss) plus resorbable barrier

Prosthesis/implant failure (1 year) · Patients with horizontally resorbed maxillary sites needing single implants

Autogenous bone block from the chin + resorbable barrier showed no clear difference in prosthesis/implant failure (1 year) compared with 100% Bio-Oss + resorbable barrier; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Inlay autogenous bone graft (iliac crest) vs Inlay bone substitute (Bio-Oss block)

Prosthesis failure · Patients with atrophic posterior mandibles (5 to 7 mm above the mandibular canal) needing implants

Inlay autogenous bone graft (iliac crest) showed no clear difference in prosthesis failure compared with inlay bone substitute (Bio-Oss block); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Autogenous bone block from the chin vs Bovine-derived xenograft (Bio-Oss) plus resorbable barrier

Prosthesis/implant failure (1 year) · Patients with horizontally resorbed maxillary sites needing single implants

Autogenous bone block from the chin showed no clear difference in prosthesis/implant failure (1 year) compared with 100% Bio-Oss + resorbable barrier; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Buccal onlay iliac grafts fixed with titanium screws vs Buccal onlay iliac grafts fixed with resorbable screws (split-mouth)

Implant/prosthesis failure and complications · Patients with resorbed maxillae (incl. atrophic sinuses) needing implants
1 finding from 1 review

Occlusal splint vs Transcutaneous electric nerve stimulation (TENS)

Headache · People with sleep bruxism (tooth grinding or clenching); children (greater than 1 year old) and adults; diagnosis clinical,…
1 finding from 1 review
  • Occlusal splint versus TENS, headaches (Alvarez-Arenal 2002): the event did not occur in either group, so the risk ratio was not estimable (Risk Ratio, M-H, Fixed, 95% CI; subtotals only).
    1 study
    GRADE not reported

Experimental orthodontic composite containing nano-hydroxyapatite (n-HAP) vs Conventional/control orthodontic adhesive (e.g., Transbond XT) or negative control

Enamel surface microhardness · Human enamel specimens around orthodontic brackets (in vitro)

In vitro, a nano-hydroxyapatite-containing orthodontic composite showed significant enamel remineralization versus control in a single study (ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Antibacterial S. mutans reduction only in Farzanegan (chitosan+TiO2); Mollabashi (TiO2-only) showed no significant antibacterial effect - not attributable to TiO2 alone vs Conventional/control orthodontic adhesive (e.g., Transbond XT) or negative control

Streptococcus mutans count · Patients undergoing fixed orthodontic (fixed appliance) treatment (adolescents and adults, ages 12 to 35)

The antibacterial (S. mutans) effect of TiO2 nanoparticles was conflicting across two RCTs (ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Light-cured resin-modified glass ionomer cement vs Resin adhesive

First-time bracket failure · Orthodontic patients of any age with fixed braces (new DLs assessed at debond)

Resin-modified glass ionomer cement showed no difference in first-time bracket failure, with certainty not graded.

1 finding from 1 review

Transbond XT with 1% chitosan and 1% TiO2 nanoparticles vs Conventional/control orthodontic adhesive (e.g., Transbond XT) or negative control

Streptococcus mutans count · Orthodontic patients of any age with fixed braces (new DLs assessed at debond)

Chitosan and TiO2 adhesive reduced S. mutans counts, with certainty not graded.

1 finding from 1 review

Resin-modified glass ionomer cement for bonding orthodontic brackets vs Conventional/control orthodontic adhesive (e.g., Transbond XT) or negative control

New white spot lesion incidence (and first-time bracket bond failure) · Patients undergoing fixed orthodontic (fixed appliance) treatment (adolescents and adults, ages 12 to 35)

A single multicenter RCT found resin-modified glass-ionomer cement did not reduce new white spot lesions or bond failures versus conventional composite (ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Farzanegan 2021 = Transbond XT + 1% chitosan + 1% TiO2 (co-intervention); Mollabashi 2022 = TiO2-only composite (1 wt%) vs Conventional/control orthodontic adhesive (e.g., Transbond XT) or negative control

Enamel demineralization / white spot lesion prevention (DIAGNOdent, enamel mineral content) · Patients undergoing fixed orthodontic (fixed appliance) treatment (adolescents and adults, ages 12 to 35)

Two small RCTs gave inconsistent results for TiO2-modified adhesives/composites on enamel demineralization (one favorable on DIAGNOdent, one no difference in mineral content); ungraded.

1 finding from 1 review

Clearfil Protect Bond antibacterial fluoride-releasing primer vs Conventional/control orthodontic adhesive (e.g., Transbond XT) or negative control

White spot lesion rate and volume · Orthodontic patients of any age with fixed braces (new DLs assessed at debond)

Clearfil Protect Bond showed no WSL-rate difference versus conventional adhesive, with certainty not graded.

1 finding from 1 review

Transbond XT with 1% chitosan and 1% TiO2 nanoparticles vs Conventional/control orthodontic adhesive (e.g., Transbond XT) or negative control

Enamel mineral content · Orthodontic patients of any age with fixed braces (new DLs assessed at debond)

Chitosan and TiO2 adhesive showed no enamel mineral-content difference, with certainty not graded.

1 finding from 1 review

Prior SDF application without a rinsing step vs No prior SDF application (untreated dentin control)

Immediate bond strength (MPa) · Dental adhesives bonded to sound dentin (in vitro)

Prior SDF without a rinsing step significantly reduces adhesive bond strength to sound dentin (MD 17.52 MPa favoring untreated dentin, 95% CI 5.81 to 29.22; ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review