Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

4,730 questions · 18,059 findings · 1,282 reviews

No studies found 4,360 · 24.1%GRADE not reported 2,529 · 14%Very low 4,641 · 25.7%Low 4,007 · 22.2%Moderate 2,057 · 11.4%High 465 · 2.6%

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

Neocone vs Alvogyl

Mean time to resolution of pain · Adults (>18 years) with established dry socket following permanent tooth extraction

Neocone led to lower time to complete resolution of pain (days) compared with alvogyl; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Teriparatide 20 microg daily in addition to standard care vs placebo + standard care

Healing of MRONJ · People with established (manifest) MRONJ

Teriparatide 20 microg daily in addition to standard care showed no clear difference in healing of MRONJ (resolution of lesions) compared with placebo in addition to standard care (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Concentrated growth factor (CGF) and primary wound closure vs primary closure

Healing of MRONJ (soft tissue healing) · Women with osteoporosis and established MRONJ

It is very uncertain whether concentrated growth factor (CGF) and primary wound closure changes healing of MRONJ (soft tissue healing) compared with primary wound closure only (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Single-surface ART restoration using high-viscosity glass ionomer vs Multi-surface ART with high-viscosity GIC

Restoration failure · Children (2-9 years) with caries in posterior primary teeth

Single-surface ART restorations had a low reported mean annual failure rate (about 5%; ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Chlorhexidine rinse (0.12% and 0.2%, pre- and post-extraction) vs placebo or no treatment

Presence of dry socket · Adults (>18 years) having permanent tooth extraction (predominantly mandibular third molars)

Chlorhexidine rinse (0.12% and 0.2%, pre- and post-extraction) probably leads to lower presence of dry socket compared with placebo or no treatment (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Atraumatic restorative treatment with GIC vs Conventional restoration

Restoration failure · Children (3-13 years) with dentine caries in primary teeth, no pulpal involvement

ART with GIC was reported to increase the odds of restoration failure versus conventional restoration (OR 1.60; ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Selective carious tissue removal (selective excavation, SE) vs Non-selective or complete carious tissue removal

Pulp exposure during caries removal · Children with dentine caries in primary and permanent teeth

Partial caries removal was reported to reduce pulp-exposure risk by 77% versus complete caries removal (RR 0.23; ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Artemisia desertorum spreng (Shahaosan) vs placebo

Presence of dry socket · Adults (>18 years) having permanent tooth extraction (predominantly mandibular third molars)

Artemisia desertorum spreng (Shahaosan) showed no clear difference in presence of dry socket compared with placebo; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Selective carious tissue removal (selective excavation, SE) vs Non-selective or complete carious tissue removal

Pulp exposure during caries removal · Children (3-11 years) with symptomless, vital dentine caries in primary molars

Partial caries removal reduced the reported risk of pulp exposure versus complete caries removal in primary teeth (RR 0.24; ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Zinc oxide and eugenol (ZOE) vs Alvogyl (old formulation)

Success rate (radiographically‐assessed healing of cyst healing based on the Neer/Cole rating system) · Adults (>18 years) with established dry socket following permanent tooth extraction
1 finding from 1 review

High-viscosity GIC atraumatic restorative treatment vs Conventional restoration

Restoration survival · Children with occlusoproximal caries in primary teeth

Multiple reviews reported similar restoration survival for ART versus conventional restorations in occlusoproximal cavities (ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review