Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

39 questions · 49 findings · 3 reviews · Implants and prosthodontics

No studies found 21 · 42.9%GRADE not reported 17 · 34.7%Very low 9 · 18.4%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 2 · 4.1%High 0 · 0%

Adjunctive antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) applied after subgingival instrumentation (SI) vs Subgingival instrumentation (SI) alone (hand or power-driven, or both), or SI plus placebo/sham aPDT

Any adverse effect related to aPDT · Adults (> 18 years) with a clinical diagnosis of periodontitis, receiving active (non-surgical anti-infective) treatment
1 finding from 1 review

Adjunctive antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) applied after subgingival instrumentation (SI) vs Subgingival instrumentation (SI) alone (hand or power-driven, or both), or SI plus placebo/sham aPDT

Change in probing pocket depth (PPD) · Adults (> 18 years) with a clinical diagnosis of periodontitis, receiving active (non-surgical anti-infective) treatment

Adjunctive antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) applied after… led to higher change in probing pocket depth (PPD) compared with subgingival instrumentation (SI) alone (hand or power-driven, or…; GRADE not reported.

2 findings from 1 review

Adjunctive antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) applied after subgingival instrumentation (SI) vs Subgingival instrumentation (SI) alone (hand or power-driven, or both), or SI plus placebo/sham aPDT

Attachment change · Adults (> 18 years) with a clinical diagnosis of periodontitis, receiving active (non-surgical anti-infective) treatment

Adjunctive antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) applied after… led to higher change in clinical attachment level (CAL) compared with subgingival instrumentation (SI) alone (hand or power-driven, or…; GRADE not reported.

2 findings from 1 review

Adjunctive antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) applied after subgingival instrumentation (SI) vs Subgingival instrumentation (SI) alone (hand or power-driven, or both), or SI plus placebo/sham aPDT

Attachment change · Adults (> 18 years) with recurrent periodontitis, receiving supportive (maintenance) periodontal care

It is very uncertain whether adjunctive antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) applied after… changes change in clinical attachment level (CAL) compared with subgingival instrumentation (SI) alone (hand or power-driven, or… (very low certainty).

2 findings from 1 review

Adjunctive antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) applied after subgingival instrumentation (SI) vs Subgingival instrumentation (SI) alone (hand or power-driven, or both), or SI plus placebo/sham aPDT

Change in bleeding on probing (BOP) · Adults (> 18 years) with recurrent periodontitis, receiving supportive (maintenance) periodontal care

Adjunctive antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) applied after… showed no clear difference in change in bleeding on probing (BOP) compared with subgingival instrumentation (SI) alone (hand or power-driven, or…; GRADE not reported.

2 findings from 1 review

Adjunctive antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) applied after subgingival instrumentation (SI) vs Subgingival instrumentation (SI) alone (hand or power-driven, or both), or SI plus placebo/sham aPDT

Change in bleeding on probing (BOP) · Adults (> 18 years) with a clinical diagnosis of periodontitis, receiving active (non-surgical anti-infective) treatment

It is very uncertain whether adjunctive antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) applied after… changes change in bleeding on probing (BOP) compared with subgingival instrumentation (SI) alone (hand or power-driven, or… (very low certainty).

2 findings from 1 review

Adjunctive antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) applied after subgingival instrumentation (SI) vs Subgingival instrumentation (SI) alone (hand or power-driven, or both), or SI plus placebo/sham aPDT

Change in gingival recession (REC) · Adults (> 18 years) with recurrent periodontitis, receiving supportive (maintenance) periodontal care

It is very uncertain whether adjunctive antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) applied after… changes change in gingival recession (REC) compared with subgingival instrumentation (SI) alone (hand or power-driven, or… (very low certainty).

2 findings from 1 review

Adjunctive antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) applied after subgingival instrumentation (SI) vs Subgingival instrumentation (SI) alone (hand or power-driven, or both), or SI plus placebo/sham aPDT

Quality of life · Adults (> 18 years) with a clinical diagnosis of periodontitis, receiving active (non-surgical anti-infective) treatment

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Adjunctive antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) applied after subgingival instrumentation (SI) vs Subgingival instrumentation (SI) alone (hand or power-driven, or both), or SI plus placebo/sham aPDT

Pocket closure · Adults (> 18 years) with recurrent periodontitis, receiving supportive (maintenance) periodontal care
2 findings from 1 review

Adjunctive antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) applied after subgingival instrumentation (SI) vs Subgingival instrumentation (SI) alone (hand or power-driven, or both), or SI plus placebo/sham aPDT

Quality of life · Adults (> 18 years) with recurrent periodontitis, receiving supportive (maintenance) periodontal care

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Adjunctive antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) applied after subgingival instrumentation (SI) vs Subgingival instrumentation (SI) alone (hand or power-driven, or both), or SI plus placebo/sham aPDT

Change in probing pocket depth (PPD) · Adults (> 18 years) with recurrent periodontitis, receiving supportive (maintenance) periodontal care

Adjunctive antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) applied after… showed no clear difference in change in probing pocket depth (PPD) compared with subgingival instrumentation (SI) alone (hand or power-driven, or…; GRADE not reported.

2 findings from 1 review

Adjunctive antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) applied after subgingival instrumentation (SI) vs Subgingival instrumentation (SI) alone (hand or power-driven, or both), or SI plus placebo/sham aPDT

Change in gingival recession (REC) · Adults (> 18 years) with a clinical diagnosis of periodontitis, receiving active (non-surgical anti-infective) treatment

It is very uncertain whether adjunctive antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) applied after… changes change in gingival recession (REC) compared with subgingival instrumentation (SI) alone (hand or power-driven, or… (very low certainty).

2 findings from 1 review

Adjunctive antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) applied after subgingival instrumentation (SI) vs Subgingival instrumentation (SI) alone (hand or power-driven, or both), or SI plus placebo/sham aPDT

Patient satisfaction · Adults (> 18 years) with recurrent periodontitis, receiving supportive (maintenance) periodontal care

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Adjunctive antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) applied after subgingival instrumentation (SI) vs Subgingival instrumentation (SI) alone (hand or power-driven, or both), or SI plus placebo/sham aPDT

Any adverse effect related to aPDT · Adults (> 18 years) with recurrent periodontitis, receiving supportive (maintenance) periodontal care
1 finding from 1 review

Zygomatic implants without bone grafts (as a complete alternative to any bone augmentation procedure) vs Conventional dental implants in augmented maxillae

Patient perceived satisfaction (denture preference) · Participants with an atrophic maxilla who cannot be rehabilitated with conventional dental implants due to lack of bone (including…

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Zygomatic implants without bone grafts (as a complete alternative to any bone augmentation procedure) vs Conventional dental implants in augmented maxillae

Complications · Participants with an atrophic maxilla who cannot be rehabilitated with conventional dental implants due to lack of bone (including…

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Zygomatic implants without bone grafts (as a complete alternative to any bone augmentation procedure) vs Conventional dental implants in augmented maxillae

Prosthesis failure · Participants with an atrophic maxilla who cannot be rehabilitated with conventional dental implants due to lack of bone (including…

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Zygomatic implants without bone grafts (as a complete alternative to any bone augmentation procedure) vs Conventional dental implants in augmented maxillae

Cost‐effectiveness · Participants with an atrophic maxilla who cannot be rehabilitated with conventional dental implants due to lack of bone (including…

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Zygomatic implants without bone grafts (as a complete alternative to any bone augmentation procedure) vs Conventional dental implants in augmented maxillae

Implant failure rate · Participants with an atrophic maxilla who cannot be rehabilitated with conventional dental implants due to lack of bone (including…

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review