Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

63 questions · 64 findings · 11 reviews

No studies found 21 · 32.8%GRADE not reported 12 · 18.8%Very low 18 · 28.1%Low 13 · 20.3%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%

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

Self- or observational assessment of intraoperative distress/pain/acceptance of treatment during provision of LA: pain-related behaviour (any disruptive behaviour/sudden reaction/movement) · Children and adolescents having dental treatment under local anaesthetic without general anaesthesia
1 finding from 1 review

Laxative vs placebo

Time to first BM (№ women with 1st BM on day 1 after delivery) · women in the postpartum period

Laxative may leads to higher time to first bowel movement (BM) (№ women with 1st BM less than 24… compared with placebo (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Baclofen vs placebo

Neuromusculoskeletal and movement‐related functions up to 6 hours after treatment (Measured by spasm and deep tendon reflex scores, 0‐5, with 0 being no reflexes and 5 being clonus, or repeated involuntary muscle contractions) · adults with traumatic brain injury with spasticity in their arms and legs
1 finding from 1 review

Intra-articular injection of sodium hyaluronate vs corticosteroid injection

Extent of mandibular movement (maximum jaw opening, lateral and contralateral movement, jaw protrusion) · Adults (>18 years) with temporomandibular joint osteoarthritis (TMJ OA) diagnosed by RDC/TMD or compatible criteria

Intra-articular injection of sodium hyaluronate showed no clear difference in extent of mandibular movement (maximum jaw opening, lateral and… compared with intra-articular injection of corticosteroids (betamethasone); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review
  • Interventions for managing temporomandibular joint osteoarthritis 2012 · Cochrane All outcomes
    14 days to 6 months
    None of the mean differences between interventions for the measures of jaw movements (maximum jaw opening, lateral movement to affected side, contralateral movement, jaw protrusion; Analyses 1.16-1.27) showed…
    1 study · 40 participants
    GRADE not reported

Oral diclofenac sodium (NSAID) vs splint

Pain (on movement and on palpation of the affected TMJ) · Adults (>18 years) with temporomandibular joint osteoarthritis (TMJ OA) diagnosed by RDC/TMD or compatible criteria
1 finding from 1 review
  • Interventions for managing temporomandibular joint osteoarthritis 2012 · Cochrane All outcomes
    1 week and 3 months
    Data for pain on movement or pain on palpation of the affected TMJ (both at 1 week and 3 months) could not be extracted, as they are described as percentages of an unclear total number. Narratively, diclofenac sodium…
    1 study
    GRADE not reported

Light vibrational forces (LVF) vs Conventional orthodontic appliance treatment

Costs · Adolescents and adults with malocclusion undergoing orthodontic treatment with fixed or removable appliances

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Light-emitting diode (LED) photobiomodulation vs Conventional orthodontic appliance treatment

Discomfort/pain · Adolescents and adults with malocclusion undergoing fixed orthodontic appliance treatment

It is very uncertain whether light-emitting diode (LED) photobiomodulation changes patient perception of pain and discomfort (VAS 0 to 100 mm) compared with conventional orthodontic appliance treatment (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Light vibrational forces (LVF) vs Conventional orthodontic appliance treatment

Change in angulation of teeth adjacent to the space (molar and canine tipping/rotation) · Adolescents and adults with malocclusion undergoing orthodontic treatment with fixed or removable appliances
1 finding from 1 review

Light vibrational forces (LVF) vs Conventional orthodontic appliance treatment

Discomfort/pain · Adolescents and adults with malocclusion undergoing orthodontic treatment with fixed or removable appliances

Light vibrational forces (LVF) showed no clear difference in patient perception of pain and discomfort (VAS 0 to 100 mm),… compared with conventional orthodontic appliance treatment (placebo or no adjunct) (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Low‐level laser therapy vs Conventional orthodontic appliance treatment

Side effects or other adverse events · Adolescents and adults with malocclusion undergoing fixed orthodontic appliance treatment
1 finding from 1 review

Low‐level laser therapy vs Conventional orthodontic appliance treatment

Periodontal health during molar intrusion · Adolescents and adults with malocclusion undergoing fixed orthodontic appliance treatment
1 finding from 1 review

Low‐level laser therapy vs Conventional orthodontic appliance treatment

Total number of orthodontic appliance adjustment appointments during alignment stage · Adolescents and adults with malocclusion undergoing fixed orthodontic appliance treatment

It is very uncertain whether low level laser therapy (LLLT) changes total number of orthodontic appliance adjustment appointments during… compared with conventional orthodontic appliance treatment (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Low‐level laser therapy vs Conventional orthodontic appliance treatment

Discomfort/pain · Adolescents and adults with malocclusion undergoing fixed orthodontic appliance treatment

It is very uncertain whether low level laser therapy (LLLT) changes patient perception of pain and discomfort (VAS 0 to 100 mm) compared with conventional orthodontic appliance treatment (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Low‐level laser therapy vs Conventional orthodontic appliance treatment

Duration of orthodontic treatment during alignment stage · Adolescents and adults with malocclusion undergoing fixed orthodontic appliance treatment

It is very uncertain whether low level laser therapy (LLLT) changes duration of orthodontic treatment during alignment stage compared with conventional orthodontic appliance treatment (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Light vibrational forces (LVF) vs Conventional orthodontic appliance treatment

Harms (orthodontically-induced inflammatory root resorption) · Adolescents and adults with malocclusion undergoing orthodontic treatment with fixed or removable appliances

Light vibrational forces (LVF) showed no clear difference in harms and side effects: orthodontically-induced inflammatory root… compared with conventional orthodontic appliance treatment (placebo or no adjunct) (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Low‐level laser therapy vs Conventional orthodontic appliance treatment

Patient-reported need for analgesics · Adolescents and adults with malocclusion undergoing fixed orthodontic appliance treatment

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review