Perimplant bone loss · Patients with atrophic posterior mandibles (5 to 7 mm above the mandibular canal) needing implants
Inlay autogenous bone graft (iliac crest) showed no clear difference in perimplant bone loss compared with inlay bone substitute (Bio-Oss block); GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Vertical bone gain · Patients with atrophic posterior mandibles (5 to 7 mm above the mandibular canal) needing implants
Inlay autogenous bone graft (iliac crest) showed no clear difference in vertical bone gain compared with inlay bone substitute (Bio-Oss block); GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Vertical bone gain · Patients with deficient posterior mandibles (4.5 to 10 mm above the mandibular canal) needing implants
Autogenous inlay bone graft (iliac crest) showed no clear difference in vertical bone gain compared with autogenous onlay bone graft (iliac crest); GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Vertical bone gain · Patients with vertically deficient posterior/anterior mandibular ridges needing implants
Vertical GBR with autogenous bone (retromolar) led to higher vertical bone gain compared with vertical GBR with bone substitute (Regenaform); GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
MD 0.6 [0.21, 0.99]
1 study · 5 participants
GRADE not reported
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
One type of occlusal intervention as an adjunct to periodontal therapy vs A different type of occlusal intervention as an adjunct to periodontal therapy (head-to-head)
Outcome not reported · Adults (aged 18 years or older) with a clinical diagnosis of (chronic) periodontitis
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
Patient‐reported pain intensity or pain relief (VAS, NRS or categorical scale) · People undergoing orthodontic treatment (any age; 9 to 34 years in included studies)
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
no estimate extracted
Studies not reported
No studies found
Healing of osteonecrosis - improvement ('healed' or 'improved' vs 'unchanged' or 'worse') · People of any age and either sex, in any setting, with BRONJ; bisphosphonate exposure past or current; includes people with cancer and…
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
no estimate extracted
0 studies
No studies found
Non-surgical interventions vs Surgical interventions
Outcome not reported · People with at least one dental implant affected by peri-implantitis
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
Plaque index (PI) / oral hygiene · Primary school children (aged 3-16 years) attending primary school in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs)
School-based interventions may reduce dental plaque scores (SMD -0.32, favouring intervention), but the certainty of evidence is very low.
1 finding from 1 review
Oral hygiene measured by mean gingival scores · Primary school children (aged 3-16 years) attending primary school in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs)
The effect of school-based interventions on gingival scores is uncertain and not statistically significant (SMD 0.12; very low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Dental caries · Primary school children (aged 3-16 years) attending primary school in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs)
Among children aged 6-8 years, DMFT scores were significantly reduced (SMD -0.11); subgroup not separately GRADE-rated.
8 findings from 1 review
Effectiveness of primary school-based interventions in improving oral health of children in low- and middle-income… 2022 All outcomesPost-intervention; follow-up varied across studies (interventions ranged from <2 years to >=2 years and longer) · Primary schools in low- and middle-income countries (Southeast Asia, Africa, the Americas, Europe, eastern Mediterranean) · Age 6-8 years
SMD -0.11 [-0.17, -0.04]
Studies not reported
GRADE not reported
Effectiveness of primary school-based interventions in improving oral health of children in low- and middle-income… 2022 All outcomesPost-intervention; follow-up varied across studies (interventions ranged from <2 years to >=2 years and longer) · Primary schools in low- and middle-income countries (Southeast Asia, Africa, the Americas, Europe, eastern Mediterranean) · <=3 intervention activities
SMD -0.58 [-1.62, 0.45]
Studies not reported
GRADE not reported
Effectiveness of primary school-based interventions in improving oral health of children in low- and middle-income… 2022 All outcomes<2 years · Primary schools in low- and middle-income countries (Southeast Asia, Africa, the Americas, Europe, eastern Mediterranean) · Intervention duration <2 years
SMD 0.01 [-0.16, 0.18]
3 studies
GRADE not reported
Show 5 more findings
Annual increment in DMFS (D3) · Primary school children (aged 3-16 years) attending primary school in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs)
Oral-health-education interventions significantly reduced net increment in DMFS (SMD -1.05); no significant subgroup difference vs other interventions (P=0.74).
5 findings from 1 review
Effectiveness of primary school-based interventions in improving oral health of children in low- and middle-income… 2022 All outcomesPost-intervention; follow-up varied across studies (interventions ranged from <2 years to >=2 years and longer) · Primary schools in low- and middle-income countries (Southeast Asia, Africa, the Americas, Europe, eastern Mediterranean) · Intervention type: oral health education
SMD -1.05 [-2.03, -0.08]
3 studies
GRADE not reported
Effectiveness of primary school-based interventions in improving oral health of children in low- and middle-income… 2022 All outcomesPost-intervention; follow-up varied across studies (interventions ranged from <2 years to >=2 years and longer) · Primary schools in low- and middle-income countries (Southeast Asia, Africa, the Americas, Europe, eastern Mediterranean) · WHO health-promoting-schools framework
SMD -0.57 [-1.56, 0.42]
2 studies
GRADE not reported
Effectiveness of primary school-based interventions in improving oral health of children in low- and middle-income… 2022 All outcomesPost-intervention; follow-up varied across studies (interventions ranged from <2 years to >=2 years and longer) · Primary schools in low- and middle-income countries (Southeast Asia, Africa, the Americas, Europe, eastern Mediterranean) · Non-WHO-framework interventions
SMD -1.88 [-3.15, -0.60]
Studies not reported
GRADE not reported
Show 2 more findings
Caries increment, tooth index D(M)FT · Primary school children (aged 3-16 years) attending primary school in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs)
Among children aged 5-8 years, net increment in DMFT was not significantly reduced (SMD -0.36); no significant subgroup difference by age.
3 findings from 1 review
Bone gain (horizontal - HDD) · Patients receiving immediate single implants in fresh extraction sockets (maxillary anterior/premolar sites)
Resorbable barrier (guided bone regeneration) showed no clear difference in bone gain (horizontal - HDD) compared with non-resorbable barrier (guided bone regeneration); GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
All treatments resulted in statistically significant bone gain, however no statistically significant differences were found between the three procedures (Chen 2005a). Horizontal depth of the defect (HDD).
1 study · 23 participants
GRADE not reported
Vertical bone gain · Patients receiving immediate single implants in fresh extraction sockets (maxillary anterior/premolar sites)
Resorbable barrier (guided bone regeneration) showed no clear difference in bone gain (vertical - VDH) compared with non-resorbable barrier (guided bone regeneration); GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
All treatments resulted in statistically significant bone gain, however no statistically significant differences were found between the three procedures (Chen 2005a). Vertical height of the defect (VDH).
1 study · 23 participants
GRADE not reported
Vertical bone gain · Patients receiving immediate single implants in fresh extraction sockets (maxillary anterior/premolar sites)
Resorbable barrier (guided bone regeneration) showed no clear difference in bone gain (vertical - VDH) compared with resorbable barrier + autogenous bone; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
All treatments resulted in statistically significant bone gain, however no statistically significant differences were found between the three procedures (Chen 2005a). Vertical height of the defect (VDH).
1 study · 24 participants
GRADE not reported
Bone gain (horizontal - HDD) · Patients receiving immediate single implants in fresh extraction sockets (maxillary anterior/premolar sites)
Resorbable barrier (guided bone regeneration) showed no clear difference in bone gain (horizontal - HDD) compared with resorbable barrier + autogenous bone; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
All treatments resulted in statistically significant bone gain, however no statistically significant differences were found between the three procedures (Chen 2005a). Horizontal depth of the defect (HDD).
1 study · 24 participants
GRADE not reported
Vertical bone gain · Patients receiving immediate single implants in fresh extraction sockets (maxillary anterior/premolar sites)
Non-resorbable barrier (guided bone regeneration) showed no clear difference in bone gain (vertical - VDH) compared with resorbable barrier + autogenous bone; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
All treatments resulted in statistically significant bone gain, however no statistically significant differences were found between the three procedures (Chen 2005a). Vertical height of the defect (VDH).
1 study · 25 participants
GRADE not reported
Bone gain (horizontal - HDD) · Patients receiving immediate single implants in fresh extraction sockets (maxillary anterior/premolar sites)
Non-resorbable barrier (guided bone regeneration) showed no clear difference in bone gain (horizontal - HDD) compared with resorbable barrier + autogenous bone; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
All treatments resulted in statistically significant bone gain, however no statistically significant differences were found between the three procedures (Chen 2005a). Horizontal depth of the defect (HDD).
1 study · 25 participants
GRADE not reported