Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

582 questions · 642 findings · 67 reviews · All outcomes

No studies found 173 · 26.9%GRADE not reported 298 · 46.4%Very low 121 · 18.8%Low 35 · 5.5%Moderate 15 · 2.3%High 0 · 0%

RDP with I-bar clasps / mesial rests vs RDP with circumferential clasps / distal rests

Treatment success rate · Partially edentulous patients treated with a removable dental prosthesis (RDP)

RDP with I-bar clasps / mesial rests showed no clear difference in treatment success (5-year) compared with RDP with circumferential clasps / distal rests; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Vertical GBR with non-resorbable titanium-reinforced barriers vs Vertical GBR with resorbable barriers supported by osteosynthesis plates

Complication at augmented site · Patients with vertically deficient posterior/anterior mandibular ridges needing implants

Vertical GBR with non-resorbable titanium-reinforced barriers showed no clear difference in complication at augmented site compared with vertical GBR with resorbable barriers supported by osteosynthesis…; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Vertical GBR with non-resorbable titanium-reinforced barriers vs Vertical GBR with resorbable barriers supported by osteosynthesis plates

Augmentation procedure failure · Patients with vertically deficient posterior/anterior mandibular ridges needing implants

Vertical GBR with non-resorbable titanium-reinforced barriers showed no clear difference in augmentation procedure failure compared with vertical GBR with resorbable barriers supported by osteosynthesis…; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Vertical GBR with non-resorbable titanium-reinforced barriers vs Vertical GBR with resorbable barriers supported by osteosynthesis plates

Perimplant bone loss · Patients with vertically deficient posterior/anterior mandibular ridges needing implants

Vertical GBR with non-resorbable titanium-reinforced barriers showed no clear difference in perimplant bone loss (3 years) compared with vertical GBR with resorbable barriers supported by osteosynthesis…; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Vertical GBR with non-resorbable titanium-reinforced barriers vs Vertical GBR with resorbable barriers supported by osteosynthesis plates

Vertical bone gain · Patients with vertically deficient posterior/anterior mandibular ridges needing implants

Vertical GBR with non-resorbable titanium-reinforced barriers showed no clear difference in vertical bone gain compared with vertical GBR with resorbable barriers supported by osteosynthesis…; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Oral paracetamol vs placebo

At least 50% reduction in pain · Patients requiring surgical removal of a lower wisdom tooth or teeth, with baseline moderate to severe pain (surgery under local…

Paracetamol (single oral dose, any dose or formulation; subgroups up… led to higher achieving at least 50% pain relief at 4 hours (using pain intensity… compared with placebo; GRADE not reported.

3 findings from 1 review

Oral paracetamol vs placebo

Patients with one or more adverse events · Patients requiring surgical removal of a lower wisdom tooth or teeth, with baseline moderate to severe pain (surgery under local…

Paracetamol (single oral dose, any dose or formulation; subgroups up… showed no clear difference in patients with one or more adverse events compared with placebo; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Oral paracetamol vs placebo

Participant‐reported pain relief of 50% or greater · Patients requiring surgical removal of a lower wisdom tooth or teeth, with baseline moderate to severe pain (surgery under local…

Paracetamol (single oral dose, any dose or formulation; subgroups up… led to higher achieving at least 50% pain relief at 6 hours (using pain relief… compared with placebo; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Minimally invasive caries removal (MIT): selective removal to soft dentin, self-limiting chemomechanical removal, or partial/incomplete caries removal vs Conventional caries removal (CT): selective removal to firm dentin, stepwise excavation, or complete caries removal

Pulp exposure rate · Patients with deep carious lesions in permanent (mainly posterior) teeth

Minimally invasive caries removal was associated with a lower mean pulp exposure rate than conventional removal (1.2% vs 8.1%), but the difference was not statistically significant (Wilcoxon, p = 0.068); certainty of evidence was not graded.

1 finding from 1 review

Opal Seal fluoride-releasing primer vs Conventional Transbond XT primer

White spot lesion area · Orthodontic patients of any age with fixed braces (new DLs assessed at debond)

Opal Seal showed no significant difference in WSL area, with certainty not graded.

1 finding from 1 review

TiO2-modified composite (1 wt.%) vs Control composite in contralateral quadrant

Streptococcus mutans count · Orthodontic patients of any age with fixed braces (new DLs assessed at debond)

TiO2-modified composite showed no S. mutans difference, with certainty not graded.

1 finding from 1 review

Clearfil Protect Bond antibacterial fluoride-releasing primer vs Conventional Transbond XT primer

White spot lesion incidence · Orthodontic patients of any age with fixed braces (new DLs assessed at debond)

Clearfil Protect Bond showed no difference in WSL incidence, with certainty not graded.

1 finding from 1 review

Opal Seal fluoride-releasing primer vs Conventional Transbond XT primer

White spot lesions assessed by laser fluorescence (DIAGNOdent) · Orthodontic patients of any age with fixed braces (new DLs assessed at debond)

Opal Seal had fewer DIAGNOdent-measured lesions, with certainty not graded.

1 finding from 1 review

Opal Seal fluoride-releasing primer vs Conventional Transbond XT primer

Photographic white spot lesion score · Orthodontic patients of any age with fixed braces (new DLs assessed at debond)

Opal Seal showed no difference in photographic WSL severity, with certainty not graded.

1 finding from 1 review

nCaF2 primer vs Control Transbond primer

Enamel demineralization (DIAGNOdent score) · Orthodontic patients of any age with fixed braces (new DLs assessed at debond)

nCaF2 primer favored lower demineralization scores, but certainty was not graded.

1 finding from 1 review

Opal Seal fluoride-releasing primer vs Conventional Transbond XT primer

Bracket (bond) failure · Orthodontic patients of any age with fixed braces (new DLs assessed at debond)

Opal Seal showed no difference in bracket failure, with certainty not graded.

1 finding from 1 review

Transbond Plus self etching primer (3M Unitek) vs Conventional three-step bonding system (3M Transbond XT)

White spot lesion incidence · Orthodontic patients of any age with fixed braces (new DLs assessed at debond)

The self-etch primer system had higher WSL incidence than the conventional system, with certainty not graded.

1 finding from 1 review

nCaF2 primer vs Control Transbond primer

White spot lesions assessed by laser fluorescence (DIAGNOdent) · Patients undergoing fixed orthodontic (fixed appliance) treatment (adolescents and adults, ages 12 to 35)

A single small split-mouth RCT found the nCaF2-containing primer reduced demineralization (DIAGNOdent) but showed no significant clinical white spot lesion difference at debonding (ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

nCaF2 primer vs Control Transbond primer

Photographic white spot lesion score · Orthodontic patients of any age with fixed braces (new DLs assessed at debond)

nCaF2 primer showed no clinical photographic WSL difference at debonding, with certainty not graded.

1 finding from 1 review