What do systematic reviews say?

Cryotherapy (ice chips) 30 minutes vs Cryotherapy (ice chips) 60 minutes

It is very uncertain whether oral cryotherapy for 30 minutes changes oral mucositis (moderate to severe) compared with oral cryotherapy for 60 minutes (very low certainty).

• Interventions for preventing oral mucositis in patients with cancer receiving treatment: oral cryotherapy 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes
  RR 0.68 [0.36, 1.30]
  1 study · 178 participants
  Very low

Oral cryotherapy (ice chips, ice-cold water, ice cubes or crushed ice held in the mouth during cancer treatment) vs Low-dose leucovorin rinse

It is very uncertain whether oral cryotherapy (ice chips, ice-cold water, ice cubes or crushed… changes oral mucositis (moderate to severe) compared with low-dose leucovorin rinse (very low certainty).

• Interventions for preventing oral mucositis in patients with cancer receiving treatment: oral cryotherapy 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes
  RR 0.18 [0.01, 3.42]
  1 study · 118 participants
  Very low

Oral cryotherapy (ice chips, ice-cold water, ice cubes or crushed ice held in the mouth during cancer treatment) vs no intervention or control intervention (control)

Oral cryotherapy (ice chips, ice-cold water, ice cubes or crushed… showed no clear difference in oral mucositis (moderate to severe) compared with control (no treatment or standard/usual oral care, e.g. saline rinse) (low certainty).

• Interventions for preventing oral mucositis in patients with cancer receiving treatment: oral cryotherapy 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes

  High-dose melphalan-based treatment prior to HSCT (haematological cancers)
  RR 0.43 [0.17, 1.09]
  5 studies · 270 participants
  Low
• Interventions for preventing oral mucositis in patients with cancer receiving treatment: oral cryotherapy 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes

  Low-dose methotrexate for GVHD prophylaxis after allogeneic HSCT
  RR 1.01 [0.85, 1.20]
  1 study · 122 participants
  Very low
• Interventions for preventing oral mucositis in patients with cancer receiving treatment: oral cryotherapy 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes

  Fluorouracil (5FU) treatment for solid cancers
  RR 0.52 [0.41, 0.65]
  5 studies · 444 participants
  Moderate

Oral cryotherapy (ice chips, ice-cold water, ice cubes or crushed ice held in the mouth during cancer treatment) vs Chlorhexidine rinse

It is very uncertain whether oral cryotherapy (ice chips, ice-cold water, ice cubes or crushed… changes oral mucositis (moderate to severe) compared with chlorhexidine rinse (very low certainty).

• Interventions for preventing oral mucositis in patients with cancer receiving treatment: oral cryotherapy 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes
  RR 0.89 [0.51, 1.56]
  1 study · 133 participants
  Very low

Oral cryotherapy (ice chips, ice-cold water, ice cubes or crushed ice held in the mouth during cancer treatment) vs High-dose leucovorin rinse

• Interventions for preventing oral mucositis in patients with cancer receiving treatment: oral cryotherapy 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes
  Oral mucositis (moderate to severe). Not estimable - no participants had developed moderate or severe oral mucositis by the fourth day after chemotherapy when the data were reported (Zhang 2011, Analysis 4.2, subgroup…
  1 study · 81 participants
  GRADE not reported

2 mm titanium plates vs 2.5 mm bioresorbable plates

2 mm titanium plates showed no clear difference in moderate soft tissue deformity compared with 2.5 mm bioresorbable plates; GRADE not reported.

• Interventions for the management of mandibular fractures 2013 · Cochrane All outcomes

  1 month
  RR 6.4 [0.80, 51.3]
  1 study · 57 participants
  GRADE not reported

Sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl), 2.5% to 5.25% vs Sodium hypochlorite 1%

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Irrigants for non‐surgical root canal treatment in mature permanent teeth 2012 · Cochrane All outcomes
  no estimate extracted
  0 studies
  No studies found

Sodium hypochlorite 5.25% vs Normal saline

Sodium hypochlorite 5.25% showed no clear difference in proportion of participants with moderate to severe pain 72 hours to… compared with normal saline; GRADE not reported.

• Irrigants for non‐surgical root canal treatment in mature permanent teeth 2012 · Cochrane All outcomes
  RR 0.8 [0.27, 2.5]
  1 study · 178 participants
  GRADE not reported

Sodium hypochlorite 1.3% with MTAD final rinse vs Sodium hypochlorite 1.3% with normal saline final rinse

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Irrigants for non‐surgical root canal treatment in mature permanent teeth 2012 · Cochrane All outcomes
  no estimate extracted
  0 studies
  No studies found

Chlorhexidine 0.2% vs Normal saline

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Irrigants for non‐surgical root canal treatment in mature permanent teeth 2012 · Cochrane All outcomes
  no estimate extracted
  0 studies
  No studies found

Sodium hypochlorite 5% vs Sodium hypochlorite 5% with proteolytic enzyme

• Irrigants for non‐surgical root canal treatment in mature permanent teeth 2012 · Cochrane All outcomes
  None of the participants in either intervention group reported moderate to severe pain persisting after day 2.
  1 study · 166 participants
  GRADE not reported

Sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl), 2.5% to 5.25% vs Chlorhexidine, 0.2% to 2% (solution or gel)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Irrigants for non‐surgical root canal treatment in mature permanent teeth 2012 · Cochrane All outcomes
  no estimate extracted
  0 studies
  No studies found

Sodium hypochlorite 5.25% vs Normal saline

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Irrigants for non‐surgical root canal treatment in mature permanent teeth 2012 · Cochrane All outcomes
  no estimate extracted
  0 studies
  No studies found

Sodium hypochlorite 5% vs Sodium hypochlorite 5% with proteolytic enzyme

Sodium hypochlorite 5% showed no clear difference in proportion of participants with moderate to severe pain up to 6… compared with sodium hypochlorite 5% with proteolytic enzyme; GRADE not reported.

• Irrigants for non‐surgical root canal treatment in mature permanent teeth 2012 · Cochrane All outcomes
  RR 1.5 [0.4, 5.0]
  1 study · 166 participants
  GRADE not reported

Sodium hypochlorite 5.25% vs Sodium hypochlorite 5.25% with hydrogen peroxide 3%

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Irrigants for non‐surgical root canal treatment in mature permanent teeth 2012 · Cochrane All outcomes
  no estimate extracted
  0 studies
  No studies found

Sodium hypochlorite 5.25% with EDTA 17% vs Sodium hypochlorite 1.3% with MTAD

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Irrigants for non‐surgical root canal treatment in mature permanent teeth 2012 · Cochrane All outcomes
  no estimate extracted
  0 studies
  No studies found

Sodium hypochlorite 5.25% with hydrogen peroxide 3% vs Normal saline

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Irrigants for non‐surgical root canal treatment in mature permanent teeth 2012 · Cochrane All outcomes
  no estimate extracted
  0 studies
  No studies found

Sodium hypochlorite 5.25% with hydrogen peroxide 3% vs Normal saline

Sodium hypochlorite 5.25% with hydrogen peroxide 3% showed no clear difference in proportion of participants with moderate to severe pain 72 hours to… compared with normal saline; GRADE not reported.

• Irrigants for non‐surgical root canal treatment in mature permanent teeth 2012 · Cochrane All outcomes
  RR 0.65 [0.2, 2.0]
  1 study · 161 participants
  GRADE not reported

Sodium hypochlorite 1% with chlorhexidine 2% final rinse vs Sodium hypochlorite 1% with normal saline final rinse

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Irrigants for non‐surgical root canal treatment in mature permanent teeth 2012 · Cochrane All outcomes
  no estimate extracted
  0 studies
  No studies found

Sodium hypochlorite 5.25% with EDTA 17% vs Sodium hypochlorite 1.3% with MTAD

• Irrigants for non‐surgical root canal treatment in mature permanent teeth 2012 · Cochrane All outcomes
  Only a graph plot of 'average pain' over the 7-day postoperative period in each group was provided; this could not be transformed into usable data for the review's prespecified outcomes.
  1 study
  GRADE not reported