Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

358 questions · 403 findings · 68 reviews

No studies found 43 · 10.7%GRADE not reported 121 · 30%Very low 128 · 31.8%Low 66 · 16.4%Moderate 33 · 8.2%High 12 · 3%

Intervention not reported

Number of subjects who had one or more exacerbations over the study period in adults ( · Adults and children with asthma

The intervention showed no clear difference in number of subjects who had one or more exacerbations over the study… (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

2.26% ammonium bifluoride (one-time) vs Control (details reported as unavailable)

New coronal caries in permanent first molars (caries prevention) · Children with dental caries in permanent (first) molars

One-time ammonium bifluoride gave a 56% prevented fraction, similar to SDF (57%) (single study; ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Prefabricated zirconia crowns (e.g., NuSmile, Zirkiz, Kinder Krown) vs Other crowns/restorations (stainless steel crowns, pre-veneered SSC, resin composite strip crowns, glass-fiber composite crowns)

Recurrent caries (crowns free of recurrent caries) · Children with primary (deciduous) teeth requiring full-coverage crown restoration

Recurrent caries did not differ between zirconia crowns and other restorations at 6 months (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.03; 2 studies; not GRADE-rated).

2 findings from 1 review

Fluoride-free nano-/micro-hydroxyapatite (nHA) dentifrice vs Control (regular fluoride) dentifrice

Caries lesion initiation/progression (ICDAS score, laser fluorescence/DIAGNOdent, photographic pixels, enamel acid resistance) · Patients (children and adults, age 3-40 years) with initial enamel caries lesions (non-orthodontic and orthodontic)

No meta-analysis was possible for the 5 in vivo RCTs (high heterogeneity); narratively nHA showed generally no significant difference versus fluoridated dentifrice, and the evidence was not graded (ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review
  • Efficacy of nano-hydroxyapatite on caries prevention-a systematic review and meta-analysis. 2022 All outcomes
    Median follow-up 6 months (range 6-12 months) · In vivo (clinical); non-orthodontic and orthodontic patients
    No meta-analysis was performed for the in vivo studies owing to high heterogeneity (population, control group, outcomes, follow-up periods, risk of bias) and differing statistical designs (e.g., non-inferiority);…
    5 studies · 420 participants
    GRADE not reported

Prefabricated zirconia crowns (e.g., NuSmile, Zirkiz, Kinder Krown) vs Other crowns/restorations (stainless steel crowns, pre-veneered SSC, resin composite strip crowns, glass-fiber composite crowns)

Crown retention · Children with primary (deciduous) teeth requiring full-coverage crown restoration

Zirconia crowns showed no significant difference in crown retention versus other restorations at 6 months (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.11; 3 studies; not GRADE-rated).

2 findings from 1 review

Early extraction of a compromised first permanent molar vs Non-extraction (retained first permanent molar) or contralateral non-extraction side

Spontaneous space closure · Children aged 5 to 15 years with a compromised first permanent molar

Early extraction of a compromised first permanent molar is followed by variable spontaneous closure of the post-extraction space (about 45.5% to 85.2% of cases); certainty was not GRADE-rated (Shekelle category III).

1 finding from 1 review

Intervention not reported

In‐hospital mortality · mechanically ventilated adults with acute respiratory distress syndrome. Participants were recruited from ICUs internationally, including…

The intervention showed no clear difference in in‐hospital mortality (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Intervention not reported

Rate of barotrauma · mechanically ventilated adults with acute respiratory distress syndrome. Participants were recruited from ICUs internationally, including…

The intervention showed no clear difference in rate of barotrauma (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Aesthetic (resin-veneered) crowns vs Conventional metal (stainless steel) crowns

Restoration failure · Children aged 12 years or younger with tooth decay involving at least one tooth in the primary dentition, symptomatic or symptom free

Aesthetic (resin-veneered) crowns showed no clear difference in restoration failure at 6 months compared with conventional metal (stainless steel) crowns; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Aesthetic (resin-veneered) crowns vs Conventional metal (stainless steel) crowns

Occlusion · Children aged 12 years or younger with tooth decay involving at least one tooth in the primary dentition, symptomatic or symptom free

Aesthetic (resin-veneered) crowns led to lower occlusion at 6 months compared with conventional metal (stainless steel) crowns; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Aesthetic (resin-veneered) crowns vs Conventional metal (stainless steel) crowns

Proximal contact at 6 months · Children aged 12 years or younger with tooth decay involving at least one tooth in the primary dentition, symptomatic or symptom free

Aesthetic (resin-veneered) crowns led to lower proximal contact at 6 months compared with conventional metal (stainless steel) crowns; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Aesthetic (resin-veneered) crowns vs Conventional metal (stainless steel) crowns

Marginal integrity of restoration · Children aged 12 years or younger with tooth decay involving at least one tooth in the primary dentition, symptomatic or symptom free

Aesthetic (resin-veneered) crowns led to lower marginal integrity at 6 months compared with conventional metal (stainless steel) crowns; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Aesthetic (resin-veneered) crowns vs Conventional metal (stainless steel) crowns

Gingival health at 6 months · Children aged 12 years or younger with tooth decay involving at least one tooth in the primary dentition, symptomatic or symptom free

Aesthetic (resin-veneered) crowns showed no clear difference in gingival health at 6 months compared with conventional metal (stainless steel) crowns; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review