evidencegaps
Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

60 questions · 72 findings · 13 reviews · All outcomes

Sort:Best matchNewestHighest certaintyDownload CSV
No studies found 2 · 2.8%GRADE not reported 46 · 63.9%Very low 15 · 20.8%Low 7 · 9.7%Moderate 2 · 2.8%High 0 · 0%

Orthodontic appliances (palatal crib) vs no treatment

Occlusion (change in maxillary arch length, short term) · Children with a non-nutritive sucking habit (digit or pacifier)
1 finding from 1 review

Palatal arch vs Palatal crib (alternative orthodontic appliance)

Sucking cessation (short term) · Children with a non-nutritive sucking habit (digit or pacifier)

It is very uncertain whether palatal arch changes sucking cessation (short term) compared with palatal crib (alternative orthodontic appliance) (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Orthodontic appliances (palatal crib) vs no treatment

Sucking cessation (short term) · Children with a non-nutritive sucking habit (digit or pacifier)

Orthodontic appliances (palatal arch/palatal crib) may leads to higher sucking cessation (short term) compared with no treatment (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Orthodontic appliances (palatal crib) vs no treatment

Occlusion (net change in overjet, short term) · Children with a non-nutritive sucking habit (digit or pacifier)
1 finding from 1 review
  • Interventions for the cessation of non‐nutritive sucking habits in children 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes
    Short term (3 months)
    Table 1 (reduction in malocclusion), Villa 1997 (n=24), palatal crib vs no treatment: net change in overjet (mm) - no treatment 0.02; palatal crib -0.2; no statistically significant net change in overjet between…
    1 study · 24 participants
    GRADE not reported

Psychological intervention + palatal arch vs Psychological intervention + palatal crib

Sucking cessation (short term) · Children with a non-nutritive sucking habit (digit or pacifier)

Psychological intervention + palatal arch led to lower sucking cessation (short term) compared with psychological intervention + palatal crib; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Aversive tasting substance applied to digit vs Psychological intervention (habit reversal)

Sucking cessation (short term) · Children with a non-nutritive sucking habit (digit or pacifier)

Aversive tasting substance applied to digit showed no clear difference in sucking cessation (short term) compared with psychological intervention (habit reversal); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Psychological intervention (habit reversal / positive reinforcement) vs Alternative psychological intervention (DRO / negative reinforcement)

Sucking cessation (short term) · Children with a non-nutritive sucking habit (digit or pacifier)
1 finding from 1 review
  • Interventions for the cessation of non‐nutritive sucking habits in children 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes
    Short term (less than 12 months)
    Christensen 1987 (20 participants) compared habit reversal (HR) with differential reinforcement of other behaviour (DRO): no statistically significant difference. Larsson 1972 (38 participants) compared positive with…
    2 studies · 58 participants
    GRADE not reported

Psychological interventions (positive/negative reinforcement, habit reversal, DRO) vs no treatment

Sucking cessation (short term) · Children with a non-nutritive sucking habit (digit or pacifier)

Psychological interventions (positive/negative reinforcement, habit… may leads to higher sucking cessation (short term) compared with no treatment (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Orthodontic appliances (palatal crib) vs no treatment

Occlusion (change in mandibular arch length, short term) · Children with a non-nutritive sucking habit (digit or pacifier)
1 finding from 1 review

Psychological intervention + orthodontic treatment (palatal crib or palatal arch) vs no treatment

Sucking cessation (short term) · Children with a non-nutritive sucking habit (digit or pacifier)

Psychological intervention + orthodontic treatment (palatal crib or… showed no clear difference in sucking cessation (short term) compared with no treatment; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Orthodontic appliances (palatal crib) vs no treatment

Occlusion (change in overbite, short term) · Children with a non-nutritive sucking habit (digit or pacifier)

It is very uncertain whether orthodontic appliances (palatal crib) changes occlusion (change in overbite, short term) compared with no treatment (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Habit reversal vs waiting list control

Patient‐reported pain intensity or pain relief (VAS, NRS or categorical scale) · Adults over 18 years of age with chronic orofacial pain (temporomandibular disorder (TMD))

Habit reversal led to lower pain intensity (short term / post-treatment) compared with waiting list control; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Psychosocial interventions (cognitive behavioural therapy, biofeedback, combination CBT/biofeedback, physical self-regulation/posture self-control) vs usual care

Reduction in pain intensity · Adults over 18 years of age with chronic orofacial pain (temporomandibular disorder (TMD))

Psychosocial interventions (cognitive behavioural therapy,… led to higher pain intensity (short term) compared with usual care (conservative treatment: education, counselling,…; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Breastfeeding for more than 24 months vs Not breastfed at the same age or breastfed for a shorter duration

Early childhood caries (ECC) - incidence/risk · Children with exclusively primary dentition (age ≤71 months)

Breastfeeding beyond 24 months is associated with an increased risk (incidence) of early childhood caries versus not breastfeeding at the same age (RR 2.44, 95% CI 1.97 to 3.02; low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Partial pulpotomy with one-unit longer follow-up vs Partial pulpotomy with one-unit shorter follow-up

Overall success (composite of clinical and radiographic success) · Adults aged 18 years or older with mature permanent teeth and carious pulp exposure

In the high-risk-study-excluded sensitivity meta-regression, longer follow-up was associated with lower success.

1 finding from 1 review

Longer follow-up vs Shorter follow-up

Annual increment in DMFS (D3) · Children and adolescents with permanent dentition

Not adjusted meta-regression beta was 0.43 per additional follow-up year.

5 findings from 1 review
  • Caries Progression Rates Revisited: A Systematic Review. 2019 All outcomes
    Per additional year of follow-up · Western or comparable populations · Not adjusted
    Meta-regression beta per year of follow-up 0.43 [0.04, 0.83]
    22 studies · 11300 participants
    GRADE not reported
  • Caries Progression Rates Revisited: A Systematic Review. 2019 All outcomes
    Per additional year of follow-up · Western or comparable populations · Adjusted for bitewings and age at baseline
    Meta-regression beta per year of follow-up 0.64 [0.31, 0.96]
    22 studies · 11300 participants
    GRADE not reported
  • Caries Progression Rates Revisited: A Systematic Review. 2019 All outcomes
    Per additional year of follow-up · Western or comparable populations · Adjusted for bitewings age at baseline and baseline caries experience
    Meta-regression beta per year of follow-up 0.37 [0.04, 0.70]
    22 studies · 11300 participants
    GRADE not reported
Show 2 more findings
  • Caries Progression Rates Revisited: A Systematic Review. 2019 All outcomes
    Per additional year of follow-up · Western or comparable populations · Adjusted for groups 1-4 including relevance of evidence and risk of bias
    Meta-regression beta per year of follow-up 0.46 [0.08, 0.83]
    22 studies · 11300 participants
    GRADE not reported
  • Caries Progression Rates Revisited: A Systematic Review. 2019 All outcomes
    Per additional year of follow-up · Western or comparable populations · Adjusted for groups 1-3 including decade and preventive intervention
    Meta-regression beta per year of follow-up 0.36 [-0.02, 0.73]
    22 studies · 11300 participants
    GRADE not reported

Longer follow-up vs Shorter follow-up

Annual increment in DMFT (D3) · Children and adolescents with permanent dentition

Not adjusted meta-regression beta was 0.18 per additional follow-up year.

5 findings from 1 review
  • Caries Progression Rates Revisited: A Systematic Review. 2019 All outcomes
    Per additional year of follow-up · Western or comparable populations · Not adjusted
    Meta-regression beta per year of follow-up 0.18 [-0.04, 0.40]
    13 studies · 24753 participants
    GRADE not reported
  • Caries Progression Rates Revisited: A Systematic Review. 2019 All outcomes
    Per additional year of follow-up · Western or comparable populations · Adjusted for bitewings and age at baseline
    Meta-regression beta per year of follow-up 0.18 [0.02, 0.35]
    13 studies · 24753 participants
    GRADE not reported
  • Caries Progression Rates Revisited: A Systematic Review. 2019 All outcomes
    Per additional year of follow-up · Western or comparable populations · Adjusted for bitewings age at baseline and baseline caries experience
    Meta-regression beta per year of follow-up 0.23 [0.06, 0.40]
    13 studies · 24753 participants
    GRADE not reported
Show 2 more findings
  • Caries Progression Rates Revisited: A Systematic Review. 2019 All outcomes
    Per additional year of follow-up · Western or comparable populations · Adjusted for groups 1-4 including relevance of evidence and risk of bias
    Meta-regression beta per year of follow-up -0.04 [-0.34, 0.26]
    13 studies · 24753 participants
    GRADE not reported
  • Caries Progression Rates Revisited: A Systematic Review. 2019 All outcomes
    Per additional year of follow-up · Western or comparable populations · Adjusted for groups 1-3 including decade and preventive intervention
    Meta-regression beta per year of follow-up 0.07 [-0.24, 0.39]
    13 studies · 24753 participants
    GRADE not reported