Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

2,545 questions · 2,661 findings · 317 reviews

Sort:Best matchNewest Highest certainty Download CSV

No studies found 608 · 22.8%GRADE not reported 505 · 19%Very low 695 · 26.1%Low 540 · 20.3%Moderate 249 · 9.4%High 64 · 2.4%

Dietary counselling tailored to a Stage of Change (Transtheoretical Model) to increase fruit and vegetable intake (two counselling sessions) vs usual care

Fruit consumption behaviour: proportion in the Action Stage of Change (versus Pre-Action) · Edentulous patients aged 45 to 80 years attending dental-student teaching clinics for replacement dentures, Newcastle Dental Hospital, UK

1 finding from 1 review

One‐to‐one dietary interventions undertaken in a dental setting to change dietary behaviour 2012 · Cochrane All outcomes
6 weeks after receiving replacement dentures (about 10 weeks after baseline)
At follow-up 75% (22) of the intervention group versus 29% (8) of the control were in the Action Stage of Change for fruit consumption (P<0.001); baseline 20% (6) versus 8% (2). Significant difference between groups.…
1 study · 58 participants
GRADE not reported

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

Interventions for replacing missing teeth: horizontal and vertical bone augmentation techniques for dental implant… 2009 · Cochrane All outcomes
2 years post-loading
No statistically significant difference for any outcome; data not shown (Raghoebar 2005)
1 study · 5 participants
GRADE not reported

Vertical GBR with non-resorbable titanium-reinforced barriers vs Vertical GBR with resorbable barriers supported by osteosynthesis plates

Complication at augmented site · Patients with vertically deficient posterior/anterior mandibular ridges needing implants

Vertical GBR with non-resorbable titanium-reinforced barriers showed no clear difference in complication at augmented site compared with vertical GBR with resorbable barriers supported by osteosynthesis…; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions for replacing missing teeth: horizontal and vertical bone augmentation techniques for dental implant… 2009 · Cochrane All outcomes
About 4.5 months
OR 1.46 [0.26, 8.05]
1 study · 22 participants
GRADE not reported

Vertical GBR with non-resorbable titanium-reinforced barriers vs Vertical GBR with resorbable barriers supported by osteosynthesis plates

Augmentation procedure failure · Patients with vertically deficient posterior/anterior mandibular ridges needing implants

Vertical GBR with non-resorbable titanium-reinforced barriers showed no clear difference in augmentation procedure failure compared with vertical GBR with resorbable barriers supported by osteosynthesis…; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions for replacing missing teeth: horizontal and vertical bone augmentation techniques for dental implant… 2009 · Cochrane All outcomes
About 4.5 months
OR 2.22 [0.17, 28.86]
1 study · 22 participants
GRADE not reported

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

Interventions for replacing missing teeth: horizontal and vertical bone augmentation techniques for dental implant… 2009 · Cochrane All outcomes
2 years post-loading
No statistically significant difference for any outcome; data not shown (Raghoebar 2006)
1 study · 8 participants
GRADE not reported