Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

1,954 questions · 2,335 findings · 149 reviews · Oral Health

No studies found 436 · 18.7%GRADE not reported 1,370 · 58.7%Very low 254 · 10.9%Low 173 · 7.4%Moderate 80 · 3.4%High 22 · 0.9%

Surgical anchorage (mini-screw or mid-palatal implant) vs Conventional anchorage (headgear, transpalatal/palatal arch, etc.)

Adverse events · Patients of any age undergoing orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances and requiring anchorage (adolescents to adults up to 48-54 years)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Surgical anchorage (mini-screw or mid-palatal implant) vs Conventional anchorage (headgear, transpalatal/palatal arch, etc.)

Mesiodistal movement of the upper first permanent molar · Patients of any age undergoing orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances and requiring anchorage (adolescents to adults up to 48-54 years)

Surgical anchorage (mini-screw or mid-palatal implant) probably leads to lower mesiodistal movement of the upper first permanent molar compared with conventional anchorage (headgear, transpalatal/palatal arch, etc.) (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Surgical anchorage (mini-screw or mid-palatal implant) vs Conventional anchorage (headgear, transpalatal/palatal arch, etc.)

Residual overjet at the end of treatment · Patients of any age undergoing orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances and requiring anchorage (adolescents to adults up to 48-54 years)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Surgical anchorage (mini-screw or mid-palatal implant) vs Conventional anchorage (headgear, transpalatal/palatal arch, etc.)

Patient discomfort · Patients of any age undergoing orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances and requiring anchorage (adolescents to adults up to 48-54 years)
1 finding from 1 review

Surgical anchorage (mini-screw or mid-palatal implant) vs Conventional anchorage (headgear, transpalatal/palatal arch, etc.)

Duration of overall treatment · Patients of any age undergoing orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances and requiring anchorage (adolescents to adults up to 48-54 years)

Surgical anchorage (mini-screw or mid-palatal implant) showed no clear difference in duration of overall treatment compared with conventional anchorage (headgear, transpalatal/palatal arch, etc.) (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Surgical anchorage (mini-screw or mid-palatal implant) vs Conventional anchorage (headgear, transpalatal/palatal arch, etc.)

Duration of space closure · Patients of any age undergoing orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances and requiring anchorage (adolescents to adults up to 48-54 years)

Surgical anchorage (mini-screw or mid-palatal implant) showed no clear difference in duration of space closure compared with conventional anchorage (headgear, transpalatal/palatal arch, etc.); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Surgical anchorage (mini-screw or mid-palatal implant) vs Conventional anchorage (headgear, transpalatal/palatal arch, etc.)

Number of visits · Patients of any age undergoing orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances and requiring anchorage (adolescents to adults up to 48-54 years)

Surgical anchorage (mini-screw or mid-palatal implant) led to higher number of visits compared with conventional anchorage (headgear, transpalatal/palatal arch, etc.); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Surgical anchorage (mini-screw or mid-palatal implant) vs Conventional anchorage (headgear, transpalatal/palatal arch, etc.)

Patient perception: pain · Patients of any age undergoing orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances and requiring anchorage (adolescents to adults up to 48-54 years)
1 finding from 1 review

Surgical anchorage (mini-screw or mid-palatal implant) vs Conventional anchorage (headgear, transpalatal/palatal arch, etc.)

Economic factors · Patients of any age undergoing orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances and requiring anchorage (adolescents to adults up to 48-54 years)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Dental (tooth) agenesis vs No dental agenesis

Oral health-related quality of life · Adolescents (10-19 years)

The umbrella review reported insufficient scientific evidence to support an association between dental agenesis and oral health-related quality of life.

2 findings from 1 review

Older child age (months) vs Younger age (reference)

Early childhood caries (ECC) · Children aged 0-5 years in North Africa

Age 48-59 months was associated with higher odds of ECC (OR 2.602).

2 findings from 1 review

Low maternal education (<=6 years of schooling) vs Higher maternal education (>6 years)

Poor oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) · Children aged 3-12 years

Lower maternal education was associated with poor OHRQoL (OR 1.12, 95% CI 1.00-1.23; 4 studies; high heterogeneity; CI lower bound at the null; ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Hypnosis combined with a sedative agent vs Sedation alone (sedative agent only)

Outcome not reported · Children and adolescents up to 16 years of age undergoing dental treatment

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review
  • No randomised or quasi-randomised trials comparing hypnosis combined with sedation versus sedation alone met the inclusion criteria; this planned comparison had no eligible studies.
    0 studies
    No studies found

Fluoride-releasing resin-based bonding agent vs Non-fluoride resin-based bonding agent

Initiation of white spot lesions (WSL), visual-tactile assessment · Patients of any age (11-40 years) receiving comprehensive/fixed orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances

For resin-based bonding agents, fluoride release did not significantly change WSL initiation (RR 0.97); subgroup not separately GRADE-rated.

1 finding from 1 review

Compomer (polyacid-modified composite, fluoride-releasing) for bonding brackets vs Compomer bonding agent without fluoride release

Initiation of white spot lesions (WSL), visual-tactile assessment · Patients of any age (11-40 years) receiving comprehensive/fixed orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances

For compomer-based bonding agents, fluoride release did not significantly change WSL initiation (RR 0.71); subgroup not separately GRADE-rated.

1 finding from 1 review

Fluoride-releasing glass ionomer-based bonding agent vs Non-fluoride glass ionomer-based bonding agent

Initiation of white spot lesions (WSL), visual-tactile assessment · Patients of any age (11-40 years) receiving comprehensive/fixed orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances

For a glass-ionomer-based bonding agent (single study), fluoride release significantly reduced WSL initiation (RR 0.64); subgroup not separately GRADE-rated.

1 finding from 1 review

Topical corticosteroids vs Another topical agent or placebo

Adverse effects of long‐term use of available topical agents · HIV‐infected adults (> 13 years of age, per CDC) with one or more painful intraoral aphthous ulcers

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review
  • No studies were included in this review. A total of 233 abstracts were retrieved; 25 were selected as potentially eligible but all were excluded (10 reported systemic rather than topical treatment; 3 non‐RCTs; 6…
    0 studies
    No studies found

Topical thalidomide vs Another topical agent or placebo

Adverse effects of long‐term use of available topical agents · HIV‐infected adults (> 13 years of age, per CDC) with one or more painful intraoral aphthous ulcers

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review
  • No studies were included in this review. A total of 233 abstracts were retrieved; 25 were selected as potentially eligible but all were excluded (10 reported systemic rather than topical treatment; 3 non‐RCTs; 6…
    0 studies
    No studies found

Antiseptic mouthwash (e.g. chlorhexidine) vs Another topical agent or placebo

Adverse effects of long‐term use of available topical agents · HIV‐infected adults (> 13 years of age, per CDC) with one or more painful intraoral aphthous ulcers

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review
  • No studies were included in this review. A total of 233 abstracts were retrieved; 25 were selected as potentially eligible but all were excluded (10 reported systemic rather than topical treatment; 3 non‐RCTs; 6…
    0 studies
    No studies found

Food and nonalcoholic beverage marketing (exposure) vs No, less, or less powerful food marketing

Food intake · Children and adolescents (general population, aged under 20 years)

Food marketing was associated with a significant increase in children's food intake (pooled SMD, 0.25; combined RCT and nonrandomized evidence).

3 findings from 1 review