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.

Resorbable (bioresorbable) plates or screws for fixation vs Titanium plates or screws for fixation

Complications: chronic wound pain · Adults (>16 years old) undergoing orthognathic surgery

It is very uncertain whether resorbable (bioresorbable) plates or screws for fixation changes postoperative chronic or lasting pain (wound discomfort) at 4 to 6… compared with titanium plates or screws for fixation (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Polaprezinc vs Azulene oral rinse

Oral pain · Patients receiving radiotherapy on its own or in addition to chemotherapy to the head and neck region

Polaprezinc led to lower oral pain (severe, > 2 on 0-3 scale) compared with azulene oral rinse; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Chlorhexidine mouthrinse (any concentration; 0.05% to 0.2%) used in conjunction with mechanical oral hygiene procedures vs Placebo/control mouthrinse, or no mouthrinse (mechanical oral hygiene alone); controls pooled (protocol's separate comparisons versus mechanical oral hygiene alone and versus placebo/control merged)

Plaque · Children or adults with gingivitis or periodontitis capable of performing normal mechanical oral hygiene procedures (some with medical…

Chlorhexidine mouthrinse (any concentration; 0.05% to 0.2%) used in… leads to lower dental plaque (various plaque indices) compared with placebo/control mouthrinse, or no mouthrinse (mechanical oral… (high certainty).

2 findings from 1 review

Metal-free implant-supported FDPs (zirconia-toughened alumina; In-Ceram Zirconia) vs Metal-free implant-supported FDPs (yttria-stabilized tetragonal zirconia; Denzir)

Aesthetics · Adults (18 years or older) needing an implant-supported fixed dental prosthesis in the posterior region

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Open surgical exposure vs Closed surgical exposure

Patient response: satisfaction with treatment (satisfactory vs unsatisfactory) · People with maxillary palatally displaced (impacted) canines, unilateral or bilateral (children/adolescents; mean ages 14.2 to 17.5 years)

Open surgical exposure showed no clear difference in patient response: satisfaction with treatment (satisfactory vs… compared with closed surgical exposure; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Fluoride supplementation (tablets, drops, lozenges or chewing gum) vs placebo or no treatment

Decayed primary surfaces at 3 years · Pregnant women (for preventing dental caries in the primary teeth of their children)

Fluoride supplementation (tablets, drops, lozenges or chewing gum) showed no clear difference in decayed primary surfaces at 3 years compared with placebo or no treatment; GRADE not reported.

2 findings from 1 review

Pilocarpine vs no treatment/placebo

Other oral related symptoms (oral discomfort, eating difficulty, mucosal pain, oral complications) · Patients receiving radiotherapy on its own or in addition to chemotherapy to the head and neck region
1 finding from 1 review

Bethanechol vs Artificial saliva

Salivary flow rate (stimulated) · Patients receiving radiotherapy on its own or in addition to chemotherapy to the head and neck region

Bethanechol led to higher salivary flow rate (stimulated, ml/min) compared with artificial saliva; GRADE not reported.

2 findings from 1 review

ART using glass ionomer cement (GIC) vs Amalgam restoration

Restoration failure (permanent, immature teeth) · Children and adolescents with dental caries (primary teeth and permanent immature teeth)

ART using glass ionomer cement (GIC) led to higher restoration failure (permanent, immature teeth) compared with conventional treatment using amalgam; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Amifostine (intravenous) vs Amifostine (subcutaneous)

Xerostomia (grade >= 2, 0-4 scale) · Patients receiving radiotherapy on its own or in addition to chemotherapy to the head and neck region

Amifostine (intravenous) led to lower xerostomia (grade >= 2, 0-4 scale) compared with amifostine (subcutaneous); GRADE not reported.

2 findings from 1 review

Granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF), mouthwash vs Sucralfate mouthwash

Oral mucositis (moderate to severe) · Adults receiving radiotherapy to the head and neck

Granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF), mouthwash showed no clear difference in oral mucositis (moderate to severe) compared with sucralfate mouthwash; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review