Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

4,411 questions · 5,986 findings · 226 reviews · Oral Health

No studies found 1,305 · 21.8%GRADE not reported 2,988 · 49.9%Very low 1,030 · 17.2%Low 476 · 8%Moderate 156 · 2.6%High 31 · 0.5%

Ranked among the 5,000 newest matching findings; add words or filters to narrow the search.

Diode laser vs Formocresol (FC)

Clinical failure · Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth

Diode laser showed no clear difference in clinical failure compared with formocresol (FC); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

0.5% bupivacaine, 1:200,000 epinephrine vs 2% lidocaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine

Success of local anaesthesia (pulpal, electric pulp tester; healthy pulps) · Participants of any age and gender undergoing dental procedures, and volunteers who took part in simulated scenario studies in which…

0.5% bupivacaine, 1:200,000 epinephrine showed no clear difference in success of local anaesthesia (pulpal, electric pulp tester; healthy… compared with 2% lidocaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Personalised one-to-one OHA vs Routine one-to-one OHA

Plaque · Children or adults (fit and healthy, or with a well-defined medical condition)

It is very uncertain whether personalised one-to-one OHA changes periodontal health: plaque levels compared with routine one-to-one OHA (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Activator functional appliance vs Fixed functional appliance (FORSUS FRD EZ)

Final overjet · Adolescents (age 12 to 16 years) receiving orthodontic treatment to correct prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion)

Activator functional appliance led to higher final overjet compared with fixed functional appliance (FORSUS FRD EZ); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Early treatment (two-phase) with headgear vs Late treatment (one-phase in adolescence) with headgear

Final ANB · Children (7 to 11 years) and adolescents (12 to 16 years) with prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion)

Early treatment (two-phase) with headgear led to lower final ANB compared with late treatment (one-phase in adolescence) with headgear; GRADE not reported.

2 findings from 1 review

Self-etch adhesive + acetone-based total-etch adhesive vs Non-rinse conditioner + acetone-based total-etch adhesive

Clinical failure · Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth

It is very uncertain whether self-etch adhesive + acetone-based total-etch adhesive changes clinical failure compared with non-rinse conditioner + acetone-based total-etch adhesive (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

4% articaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine vs 2% lidocaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine

Speed of onset of anaesthesia (pulpal, electric pulp tester; healthy pulps) · Participants of any age and gender undergoing dental procedures, and volunteers who took part in simulated scenario studies in which…

It is very uncertain whether 4% articaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine changes speed of onset of anaesthesia (pulpal, electric pulp tester; healthy… compared with 2% lidocaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Autologous platelet concentrates (APC) + enamel matrix derivative (EMD) vs EMD (enamel matrix derivative) alone

Tooth survival · Patients affected by infrabony defects requiring surgical treatment, regardless of their age or gender
1 finding from 1 review

0.5% bupivacaine, 1:200,000 epinephrine vs 2% lidocaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine

Success of local anaesthesia (soft tissue, self-reported; 100% success in all studies) · Participants of any age and gender undergoing dental procedures, and volunteers who took part in simulated scenario studies in which…
1 finding from 1 review
  • 'Other comparisons with 100% success': IANB - Sampaio 2012 35/35 vs 35/35; Fernandez 2005 39/39 vs 39/39. Both formulations 100% successful; no meta-analysis (no difference).
    2 studies · 74 participants
    GRADE not reported

4% articaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine vs 2% lidocaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine

Adverse effects: pain on injection (solution deposition), Heft-Parker VAS 0-170 mm · Participants of any age and gender undergoing dental procedures, and volunteers who took part in simulated scenario studies in which…

4% articaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine showed no clear difference in adverse effects: pain on injection (solution deposition),… compared with 2% lidocaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

GTR rm + CAF vs SCTG + CAF

Patients' preference for a specific procedure · Adult patients with single (localised) recession-type defects (Miller Class I/II, at least 3 mm)
1 finding from 1 review

GTR rm associated with bone substitutes + CAF vs GTR rm + CAF

Aesthetic condition change related to patient's opinion · Adult patients with single (localised) recession-type defects (Miller Class I/II, at least 3 mm)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review