Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

137 questions · 158 findings · 21 reviews · All outcomes

No studies found 49 · 31%GRADE not reported 73 · 46.2%Very low 19 · 12%Low 9 · 5.7%Moderate 8 · 5.1%High 0 · 0%

Placebo (sham irradiation, laser inactive) vs Control (no laser device used)

Maximum pain (verbal rating scale, VRS) · People requiring retreatment of periapical lesions (failed root canal therapy)

Placebo (sham irradiation, laser inactive) led to lower maximum pain (verbal rating scale, VRS) compared with control (no laser device used); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

CBT vs alternative treatment

Reduction in pain intensity · People aged 12 years and over with painful TMD lasting 3 months or longer

Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) showed no clear difference in pain intensity at treatment completion compared with alternative (active) treatment (e.g. oral splint, medication,… (low certainty).

2 findings from 1 review

CBT vs alternative treatment

Mental distress · People aged 12 years and over with painful TMD lasting 3 months or longer

Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) may leads to lower psychological distress at follow-up compared with alternative (active) treatment (e.g. oral splint, medication,… (low certainty).

2 findings from 1 review

CBT vs alternative treatment

Disability caused by pain at follow-up · People aged 12 years and over with painful TMD lasting 3 months or longer

Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) showed no clear difference in disability caused by pain at treatment completion compared with alternative (active) treatment (e.g. oral splint, medication,… (low certainty).

2 findings from 1 review

30% silver diamine fluoride vs Atraumatic restorative treatment (ART)

Patient discomfort during treatment (anxiety scale) · Children (age 1-10 years) with active cavitated dentin caries lesions in primary molars

One study found no significant difference in patient discomfort between SDF and ART (p = 0.15; ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Periodontal treatment (subgingival instrumentation, with or without antimicrobials/surgery) vs usual care or no treatment

Gingival index (GI) · People with diabetes mellitus (type 1 or type 2, mostly type 2) and periodontitis, at least 16 years of age

Periodontal treatment (subgingival instrumentation, with or without… led to lower gingival index (GI) compared with no active intervention/usual care; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Periodontal treatment (subgingival instrumentation, with or without antimicrobials/surgery) vs usual care or no treatment

HbA1c (glycated haemoglobin), change · People with diabetes mellitus (type 1 or type 2, mostly type 2) and periodontitis, at least 16 years of age

Periodontal treatment (subgingival instrumentation, with or without… probably leads to lower hbA1c (glycated haemoglobin), change compared with no active intervention/usual care (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Periodontal treatment (subgingival instrumentation, with or without antimicrobials/surgery) vs usual care or no treatment

Quality of life indicators · People with diabetes mellitus (type 1 or type 2, mostly type 2) and periodontitis, at least 16 years of age
1 finding from 1 review

Periodontal treatment (subgingival instrumentation, with or without antimicrobials/surgery) vs usual care or no treatment

Plaque index (PI) / oral hygiene · People with diabetes mellitus (type 1 or type 2, mostly type 2) and periodontitis, at least 16 years of age

Periodontal treatment (subgingival instrumentation, with or without… led to lower plaque index (PI) / oral hygiene compared with no active intervention/usual care; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Periodontal treatment (subgingival instrumentation, with or without antimicrobials/surgery) vs usual care or no treatment

Probing pocket depth (PPD/PD) · People with diabetes mellitus (type 1 or type 2, mostly type 2) and periodontitis, at least 16 years of age

Periodontal treatment (subgingival instrumentation, with or without… led to lower probing pocket depth (PPD/PD) compared with no active intervention/usual care; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Periodontal treatment (subgingival instrumentation, with or without antimicrobials/surgery) vs usual care or no treatment

Percentage of bleeding on probing (BOP) · People with diabetes mellitus (type 1 or type 2, mostly type 2) and periodontitis, at least 16 years of age

Periodontal treatment (subgingival instrumentation, with or without… led to lower bleeding on probing (BOP) compared with no active intervention/usual care; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Periodontal treatment (subgingival instrumentation, with or without antimicrobials/surgery) vs usual care or no treatment

Diabetic complications · People with diabetes mellitus (type 1 or type 2, mostly type 2) and periodontitis, at least 16 years of age

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Periodontal treatment (subgingival instrumentation, with or without antimicrobials/surgery) vs usual care or no treatment

Resource implications (e.g. cost of incontinence management methods) · People with diabetes mellitus (type 1 or type 2, mostly type 2) and periodontitis, at least 16 years of age

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Periodontal treatment (subgingival instrumentation, with or without antimicrobials/surgery) vs usual care or no treatment

Clinical attachment level (CAL) · People with diabetes mellitus (type 1 or type 2, mostly type 2) and periodontitis, at least 16 years of age

Periodontal treatment (subgingival instrumentation, with or without… led to lower clinical attachment level (CAL) compared with no active intervention/usual care; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Schwarz appliance vs No active treatment (control)

Size of the lower jaw (arch length, change) · Children or adolescents (aged 16 years old or under) receiving orthodontic treatment to prevent or correct crowded teeth

Schwarz appliance showed no clear difference in size of the lower jaw (mandibular arch length, change) at 9 months compared with no active treatment (control); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Lower lip bumper vs No active treatment (control)

Amount of crowding · Children or adolescents (aged 16 years old or under) receiving orthodontic treatment to prevent or correct crowded teeth

It is very uncertain whether lower lip bumper changes amount of crowding (change in mandibular incisor crowding) at 6 months compared with no active treatment (control) (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Lower lip bumper vs No active treatment (control)

Lower incisors to mandible (position, mm) at 9 months · Children or adolescents (aged 16 years old or under) receiving orthodontic treatment to prevent or correct crowded teeth

Lower lip bumper led to higher lower incisors to mandible at 6 months compared with no active treatment (control); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Lower lip bumper vs No active treatment (control)

Size of the lower jaw (arch length) · Children or adolescents (aged 16 years old or under) receiving orthodontic treatment to prevent or correct crowded teeth

Lower lip bumper led to higher size of the lower jaw (mandibular arch length) at 6 months compared with no active treatment (control); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Schwarz appliance vs No active treatment (control)

Amount of crowding (change in mandibular crowding) at 8 weeks · Children or adolescents (aged 16 years old or under) receiving orthodontic treatment to prevent or correct crowded teeth

It is very uncertain whether schwarz appliance changes amount of crowding (lower arch crowding, change) at 9 months compared with no active treatment (control) (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review