Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

2,556 questions · 2,794 findings · 119 reviews · All outcomes

No studies found 489 · 17.5%GRADE not reported 1,719 · 61.5%Very low 399 · 14.3%Low 128 · 4.6%Moderate 58 · 2.1%High 1 · 0%

Fluorescence camera (FC) vs Reference standard (histology, excavation, or enhanced visual examination)

Diagnostic accuracy (pooled sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio, summary-ROC AUC) · Primary teeth, occlusal surfaces, with suspected caries lesions

Fluorescence camera on occlusal surfaces of primary teeth (more advanced-lesion threshold): pooled DOR highest for FC among the three methods; heterogeneity I2=80%. Diagnostic accuracy was not formally graded (GRADE not used).

2 findings from 1 review

Laser fluorescence (DIAGNOdent 2190/pen) vs Reference standard (histology, excavation, or enhanced visual examination)

Diagnostic accuracy (pooled sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio, summary-ROC AUC) · Primary teeth, approximal surfaces, with suspected caries lesions

Pen-type laser fluorescence on approximal surfaces of primary teeth (initial-lesion threshold): only LFpen had sufficient studies to pool; heterogeneity I2=84%. Diagnostic accuracy was not formally graded (GRADE not used).

2 findings from 1 review

Laser fluorescence (DIAGNOdent 2190/pen) vs Reference standard (histology, excavation, or enhanced visual examination)

Relative DOR by reference standard (LFpen, advanced, occlusal permanent) · Permanent teeth, occlusal surfaces, with suspected caries lesions

No significant reference-standard difference for LFpen at the advanced threshold (RDOR 0.96, 0.12 to 7.77).

1 finding from 1 review

Fluorescence camera (FC) vs Reference standard (histology, excavation, or enhanced visual examination)

Diagnostic accuracy (pooled sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio, summary-ROC AUC) · Permanent teeth, occlusal surfaces, with suspected caries lesions

Fluorescence camera on occlusal surfaces of permanent teeth (initial-lesion threshold): accuracy similar among the three methods (very low inconsistency); heterogeneity I2=0%. Diagnostic accuracy was not formally graded (GRADE not used).

2 findings from 1 review

Laser fluorescence (LF; DIAGNOdent) vs Reference standard (histology, excavation, or enhanced visual examination)

Diagnostic accuracy (pooled sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio, summary-ROC AUC) · Primary teeth, occlusal surfaces, with suspected caries lesions

Laser fluorescence on occlusal surfaces of primary teeth (more advanced-lesion threshold): pooled DOR lowest for LF among the three methods; heterogeneity I2=23%. Diagnostic accuracy was not formally graded (GRADE not used).

2 findings from 1 review

Quantitative light-induced fluorescence (QLF) vs Reference standard (histology, excavation, or enhanced visual examination)

Diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity, specificity) - not pooled · Permanent teeth (occlusal and smooth surfaces), with suspected caries lesions

Only 3 QLF studies were included, so no pooled estimate of QLF diagnostic accuracy could be calculated (evidence not graded).

1 finding from 1 review

Fee‐for‐service (FFS) vs no intervention or control intervention (control)

Measures of clinical activity: mean percentage of 12- to 14-year-olds receiving fissure sealants for second permanent molars per dentist (weighted by number of children seen) - adjusted · Dentists seeing children with erupted second permanent molars (Scotland, in areas representing the four most deprived categories out of…

It is very uncertain whether fee-for-service remuneration changes measures of clinical activity: mean percentage of 12- to… compared with no specific intervention (control) (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Laser fluorescence (LF; DIAGNOdent) vs Reference standard (histology, excavation, or enhanced visual examination)

Diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity, specificity) - not pooled · Permanent and primary teeth, smooth surfaces, with suspected caries lesions

Only 2 LF studies assessed smooth surfaces, so no pooled estimate was possible; both reported higher specificity than sensitivity (evidence not graded).

1 finding from 1 review

Any orthodontic and/or surgical treatment for Angle Class III malocclusion vs no intervention or another intervention

Correction of prominent lower front teeth / effectiveness of treatment (planned primary outcome) · Adults (16 years of age or older) with an Angle Class III malocclusion (prominent lower front teeth); people with syndromes, clefts or…

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review
  • No included study measured the planned primary outcome. Discussion: 'The primary outcome proposed for this review was to evaluate the effectiveness of treatments for prognathism, but none of the studies conclusively…
    Studies not reported
    No studies found

Hypnosis vs No hypnosis (no hypnotic intervention)

Completion of treatment · Children and adolescents (0 to 16 years) needing dental treatment

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review
  • Completion of treatment was a protocol-planned primary outcome but was not reported as an outcome by any of the three included studies; statistical analysis and meta-analysis were not possible due to the insufficient…
    Studies not reported
    No studies found

Hypnosis vs No hypnosis (no hypnotic intervention)

Physiological measures during local anaesthesia (pulse rate and oxygen saturation) · Children aged 4 to 13 years with no previous dental experience undergoing restorative treatment with local anaesthesia (Gokli 1994)
1 finding from 1 review
  • With regard to oxygen saturation and pulse rate, only pulse rate was significantly lower in the hypnosis group (P = 0.005); oxygen saturation did not differ significantly. (Gokli 1994; cross-over, 29 children.)
    1 study · 29 participants
    GRADE not reported

Hypnosis vs No hypnosis (no hypnotic intervention)

Difference in post-operative anxiety between test and control groups · Children and adolescents (0 to 16 years) needing dental treatment

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review
  • Difference in post-operative anxiety was a protocol-planned outcome but was not measured or reported by any included study (no post-operative anxiety scale was reported).
    Studies not reported
    No studies found

Hypnosis vs No hypnosis (no hypnotic intervention)

Measures of behaviour during local anaesthesia administration (undesirable behaviours: crying, hand movement, physical resistance, leg movement) · Children aged 4 to 13 years with no previous dental experience undergoing restorative treatment with local anaesthesia (Gokli 1994)
1 finding from 1 review
  • Patients who were hypnotised demonstrated fewer undesirable behaviours (crying, hand movement, physical resistance and leg movement) than those who did not undergo hypnosis. Decreased crying with hypnosis was the only…
    1 study · 29 participants
    GRADE not reported

Hypnosis vs No hypnosis (no hypnotic intervention)

Orthodontic appliance (headgear) wearing time and patient co-operation · Children (mean age approximately 10 years) with skeletal Class II division 1 malocclusion undergoing orthodontic treatment with cervical…
1 finding from 1 review
  • Hypnosis for children undergoing dental treatment 2010 · Cochrane All outcomes
    6 months
    A statistically significant decrease (P < 0.05) in headgear wear was observed in the control (verbal motivation) group from the first to the sixth month; the difference in the hypnosis group was not significant,…
    1 study · 30 participants
    GRADE not reported

Enamel matrix derivative (EMD; Emdogain) vs placebo or control

Aesthetics · Patients affected by chronic, aggressive, or early onset periodontitis, with intrabony defects having an intrabony component of at least 3…

Enamel matrix derivative (EMD; Emdogain) showed no clear difference in aesthetics compared with placebo or control (same surgical or non-surgical intervention… (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Enamel matrix derivative (EMD; Emdogain) vs placebo or control

Change in gingival recession (REC) · Patients affected by chronic, aggressive, or early onset periodontitis, with intrabony defects having an intrabony component of at least 3…

Enamel matrix derivative (EMD; Emdogain) showed no clear difference in change in gingival recession (REC) compared with placebo or control (same surgical or non-surgical intervention… (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Enamel matrix derivative (EMD; Emdogain) vs placebo or control

Marginal bone level change · Patients affected by chronic, aggressive, or early onset periodontitis, with intrabony defects having an intrabony component of at least 3…
1 finding from 1 review

Enamel matrix derivative (EMD; Emdogain) vs placebo or control

Change in probing pocket depth (PPD) · Patients affected by chronic, aggressive, or early onset periodontitis, with intrabony defects having an intrabony component of at least 3…

Enamel matrix derivative (EMD; Emdogain) may leads to higher change in probing pocket depth (PPD) compared with placebo or control (same surgical or non-surgical intervention… (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Enamel matrix derivative (EMD; Emdogain) vs placebo or control

Change in probing attachment level (PAL) · Patients affected by chronic, aggressive, or early onset periodontitis, with intrabony defects having an intrabony component of at least 3…

Enamel matrix derivative (EMD; Emdogain) may leads to higher change in probing attachment level (PAL) compared with placebo or control (same surgical or non-surgical intervention… (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review