What do systematic reviews say?

Video modelling acclimatisation for LA vs Oral hygiene video

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Interventions for increasing acceptance of local anaesthetic in children and adolescents having dental treatment 2020 · Cochrane All outcomes

  In advance of LA
  Adverse effects: included studies did not report on this outcome
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

Video modelling acclimatisation for LA vs Oral hygiene video

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Interventions for increasing acceptance of local anaesthetic in children and adolescents having dental treatment 2020 · Cochrane All outcomes

  In advance of LA
  Successful LA/painless treatment: included studies did not report on this outcome
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

The wand (computer-controlled LA delivery system) vs Sleeper One (electronic LA delivery system)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Interventions for increasing acceptance of local anaesthetic in children and adolescents having dental treatment 2020 · Cochrane All outcomes

  During LA (injection is the intervention)
  Patient satisfaction: included studies did not report on this outcome
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

Counter-stimulation and distraction (combined) vs Conventional treatment

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Interventions for increasing acceptance of local anaesthetic in children and adolescents having dental treatment 2020 · Cochrane All outcomes

  During LA
  Completion of dental treatment: included studies did not report on this outcome
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

Counter-stimulation and distraction (combined) vs Conventional treatment

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Interventions for increasing acceptance of local anaesthetic in children and adolescents having dental treatment 2020 · Cochrane All outcomes

  During LA
  Patient satisfaction: included studies did not report on this outcome
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

Video modelling acclimatisation for LA vs Oral hygiene video

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Interventions for increasing acceptance of local anaesthetic in children and adolescents having dental treatment 2020 · Cochrane All outcomes

  In advance of LA
  Patient satisfaction: included studies did not report on this outcome
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

Camouflage syringe vs Conventional syringe

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Interventions for increasing acceptance of local anaesthetic in children and adolescents having dental treatment 2020 · Cochrane All outcomes

  During LA (injection is the intervention)
  Successful LA/painless treatment: included studies did not report on this outcome
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

Audiovisual distraction vs Conventional treatment

Audiovisual distraction showed no clear difference in pain on injection (Wong-Baker Faces Pain Rating Scale, after… compared with conventional treatment; GRADE not reported.

• Interventions for increasing acceptance of local anaesthetic in children and adolescents having dental treatment 2020 · Cochrane All outcomes

  During LA · VR box vs conventional
  MD 0.04 [-0.41, 0.48]
  1 study
  GRADE not reported

Video modelling acclimatisation vs Acclimatisation in clinic (tell-show-do)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Interventions for increasing acceptance of local anaesthetic in children and adolescents having dental treatment 2020 · Cochrane All outcomes

  In advance of LA
  Completion of dental treatment: included studies did not report on this outcome
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

The wand (computer-controlled LA delivery system) vs Sleeper One (electronic LA delivery system)

The wand (computer-controlled LA delivery system) showed no clear difference in pain on injection (self-reported; FACES Pain Scale Revised) compared with sleeper One (electronic LA delivery system); GRADE not reported.

• Interventions for increasing acceptance of local anaesthetic in children and adolescents having dental treatment 2020 · Cochrane All outcomes

  During LA (injection is the intervention)
  MD 0.68 [-1.31, 2.67]
  1 study · 112 participants
  GRADE not reported

The wand (computer-controlled LA delivery system) vs other local anaesthetic

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Interventions for increasing acceptance of local anaesthetic in children and adolescents having dental treatment 2020 · Cochrane All outcomes

  During LA (injection is the intervention)
  Completion of dental treatment: included studies did not report on this outcome
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

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

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Metal‐free materials for fixed prosthodontic restorations 2017 · Cochrane All outcomes
  No data were presented for any of the pre-specified secondary outcomes. Follow-up visits registered pocket depth, bleeding on probing and mobility but the data were not reported.
  0 studies
  No studies found

Metal-free FDPs (lithium disilicate) vs Metal-ceramic FDPs

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Metal‐free materials for fixed prosthodontic restorations 2017 · Cochrane All outcomes
  No data were presented with regard to aesthetics.
  0 studies
  No studies found

Metal-free FDPs (zirconia ceramic) vs Metal-ceramic FDPs

• Metal‐free materials for fixed prosthodontic restorations 2017 · Cochrane All outcomes

  12 and 36 months
  At 12 months and at 36 months 34 participants were available for analysis. No FDP failure was reported in either treatment approach at either time.
  1 study · 34 participants
  Very low

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

It is very uncertain whether metal-free implant-supported FDPs (zirconia-toughened alumina;… changes bridge complications compared with metal-free implant-supported FDPs (yttria-stabilized tetragonal… (very low certainty).

• Metal‐free materials for fixed prosthodontic restorations 2017 · Cochrane All outcomes

  60 months
  OR 0.02 [0.00, 0.42]
  1 study · 18 participants
  Very low
• Metal‐free materials for fixed prosthodontic restorations 2017 · Cochrane All outcomes

  36 months
  OR 0.02 [0.00, 0.30]
  1 study · 18 participants
  Very low
• Metal‐free materials for fixed prosthodontic restorations 2017 · Cochrane All outcomes

  12 months
  OR 0.04 [0.00, 0.48]
  1 study · 18 participants
  Very low

Metal-free cantilevered FDPs (feldspathic-veneered zirconia) vs Metal-ceramic cantilevered FDPs

Metal-free cantilevered FDPs (feldspathic-veneered zirconia) showed no clear difference in plaque index (PI) compared with metal-ceramic cantilevered FDPs; GRADE not reported.

• Metal‐free materials for fixed prosthodontic restorations 2017 · Cochrane All outcomes

  24 months
  MD -0.10 [-1.04, 0.84]
  1 study · 19 participants
  GRADE not reported

Metal-free cantilevered FDPs (feldspathic-veneered zirconia) vs Metal-ceramic cantilevered FDPs

• Metal‐free materials for fixed prosthodontic restorations 2017 · Cochrane All outcomes

  12, 24 and 36 months
  At 12 months 19 participants were available; no failure and no complication were reported in either group. No failure was reported at 24 or 36 months.
  1 study · 19 participants
  Very low

Metal-free cantilevered FDPs (feldspathic-veneered zirconia) vs Metal-ceramic cantilevered FDPs

Metal-free cantilevered FDPs (feldspathic-veneered zirconia) showed no clear difference in gingival index (GI) compared with metal-ceramic cantilevered FDPs; GRADE not reported.

• Metal‐free materials for fixed prosthodontic restorations 2017 · Cochrane All outcomes

  24 months
  MD 0.03 [-0.75, 0.81]
  1 study · 19 participants
  GRADE not reported

Metal-free tooth-supported FDPs (pressed veneering ceramic) vs Metal-free tooth-supported FDPs (layered veneering ceramic)

• Metal‐free materials for fixed prosthodontic restorations 2017 · Cochrane All outcomes
  No comparative data were presented with regard to aesthetics. Aesthetics evaluated by the patient was reported dichotomously (yes/no) in the trial but no between-group estimate was presented.
  1 study
  GRADE not reported

Metal-free tooth-supported FDPs (pressed veneering ceramic) vs Metal-free tooth-supported FDPs (layered veneering ceramic)

• Metal‐free materials for fixed prosthodontic restorations 2017 · Cochrane All outcomes
  No comparative data were presented for the pre-specified secondary outcomes. The trial analyzed and reported plaque index, bleeding on probing and pocket probing depth but no between-group estimate was presented in the…
  1 study
  GRADE not reported