Attachment change · Adult patients with single (localised) recession-type defects (Miller Class I/II, at least 3 mm)
XCM + CAF showed no clear difference in clinical attachment level change compared with CAF (low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Final ANB · Adolescents (age 12 to 16 years) receiving orthodontic treatment to correct prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion)
FMA stepwise advancement (SWG) led to lower final ANB compared with FMA single step advancement (SSG); GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Occurrence of adverse effects or postoperative complications · Adult patients with single (localised) recession-type defects (Miller Class I/II, at least 3 mm)
1 finding from 1 review
Keratinized tissue change · Adult patients with single (localised) recession-type defects (Miller Class I/II, at least 3 mm)
It is very uncertain whether GTR rm + CAF changes keratinized tissue change compared with SCTG + CAF (very low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Change in gingival recession (REC) · Adult patients with single (localised) recession-type defects (Miller Class I/II, at least 3 mm)
It is very uncertain whether EMP + CAF changes gingival recession change compared with SCTG + CAF (very low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Marginal bone level change · Adults (18 years or older) with one missing tooth in the aesthetic zone needing an implant-supported single crown
Metal-free implant abutments (zirconia) showed no clear difference in marginal bone level change (MBLC) compared with metal implant abutments (titanium); GRADE not reported.
2 findings from 1 review
Periodontal or peri-implant status: gingival recession (REC) · Adults (18 years or older) with one missing tooth in the aesthetic zone needing an implant-supported single crown
Metal-free implant abutments (zirconia) showed no clear difference in gingival/mucosal recession (REC) compared with metal implant abutments (titanium); GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Abutment failure · Adults (18 years or older) with one missing tooth in the aesthetic zone needing an implant-supported single crown
It is very uncertain whether metal-free implant abutments (zirconia) changes abutment failure compared with metal implant abutments (titanium) (very low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Implant probing pocket depth (PPD) · Adults (18 years or older) with one missing tooth in the aesthetic zone needing an implant-supported single crown
Metal-free implant abutments (zirconia) showed no clear difference in implant probing pocket depth (PPD) compared with metal implant abutments (titanium); GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Complications · Adults (18 years or older) with one missing tooth in the aesthetic zone needing an implant-supported single crown
1 finding from 1 review
Aesthetics · Adults (18 years or older) with one missing tooth in the aesthetic zone needing an implant-supported single crown
1 finding from 1 review
Primary outcome aesthetic evaluation data were reported as the frequency of distribution of the Implant Crown Aesthetic Index (ICAI); no comparative summary estimate was presented.
2 studies · 47 participants
Very low
Remineralisation of early enamel caries · Patients (mainly children) with white spot lesions (WSL)
Professionally applied 5% sodium fluoride varnish remineralised about two-thirds of early enamel caries lesions in children (pooled proportion 63.6%, 95% CI 36.0% to 91.2%; 4 studies); certainty was not GRADE-rated and heterogeneity was very high (I2=96%).
1 finding from 1 review
Arrest of dentine caries · Children with dentine caries in primary and permanent teeth
Professionally applied 38% silver diamine fluoride arrested about two-thirds of active dentine caries surfaces in children (pooled proportion 65.9%, 95% CI 41.2% to 90.7%; 5 studies); certainty was not GRADE-rated and heterogeneity was very high (I2=96%).
1 finding from 1 review
Root canal medications and canal filling, splinting, extraction of teeth, or surgical removal of any relevant pathology vs Each other, placebo, or no treatment
Outcome not reported · Patients with single and multiple permanent teeth with evidence of any type of external root resorption irrespective of its aetiology,…
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
None of the studies fulfilled our inclusion criteria and therefore no data analysis was conducted. (Main results: no RCTs that met the inclusion criteria were identified; one ongoing study, NCT00423956, potentially…
0 studies
No studies found
Economic factors · Patients undergoing orthodontic treatment requiring surgical (mini-screw implant) anchorage
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
Number of visits · Patients undergoing orthodontic treatment requiring surgical (mini-screw implant) anchorage
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
Residual overjet at the end of treatment · Patients undergoing orthodontic treatment requiring surgical (mini-screw implant) anchorage
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
Success of the anchorage device · Patients undergoing orthodontic treatment requiring surgical (mini-screw implant) anchorage
Dual mini-screw implant showed no clear difference in success of the anchorage device compared with single mini-screw implant; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Duration of space closure · Patients undergoing orthodontic treatment requiring surgical (mini-screw implant) anchorage
Dual mini-screw implant showed no clear difference in duration of space closure compared with single mini-screw implant; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Mesiodistal movement of the upper first permanent molar · Patients undergoing orthodontic treatment requiring surgical (mini-screw implant) anchorage
Dual mini-screw implant led to higher mesiodistal movement of the upper first permanent molar compared with single mini-screw implant; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review