Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

610 questions · 675 findings · 57 reviews · Oral Health

No studies found 105 · 15.6%GRADE not reported 429 · 63.6%Very low 102 · 15.1%Low 31 · 4.6%Moderate 8 · 1.2%High 0 · 0%

Tyrosine kinase inhibitor (erlotinib, gefitinib or lapatinib) plus standard therapy (radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy) vs Standard therapy alone (radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy)

Disease-free survival · People with squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity or oropharynx

It is very uncertain whether tyrosine kinase inhibitor (erlotinib, gefitinib or lapatinib) plus… changes disease-free survival compared with standard therapy alone (radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy) (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Tyrosine kinase inhibitor (erlotinib, gefitinib or lapatinib) plus standard therapy (radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy) vs Standard therapy alone (radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy)

Locoregional control · People with squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity or oropharynx

It is very uncertain whether tyrosine kinase inhibitor (erlotinib, gefitinib or lapatinib) plus… changes locoregional control compared with standard therapy alone (radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy) (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Oral cryotherapy (ice chips, ice-cold water, ice cubes or crushed ice held in the mouth during cancer treatment) vs High-dose leucovorin rinse

Oral mucositis (moderate to severe) · Patients with osteosarcoma (bone cancer) receiving high-dose methotrexate, vincristine and leucovorin
1 finding from 1 review

EGFR monoclonal antibody (cetuximab or nimotuzumab) plus standard therapy (radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy) vs Standard therapy alone (radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy)

Locoregional control · People with squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity or oropharynx

EGFR monoclonal antibody (cetuximab or nimotuzumab) plus standard… probably leads to lower locoregional control compared with standard therapy alone (radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy) (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Non-specific immunotherapy (recombinant interleukin-2 or BCG cell wall preparation) plus standard therapy vs Standard therapy alone (radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy)

Locoregional control · People with squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity or oropharynx
1 finding from 1 review

EGFR monoclonal antibody (cetuximab or nimotuzumab) plus standard therapy (radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy) vs Standard therapy alone (radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy)

Quality of life · People with squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity or oropharynx
1 finding from 1 review

Maxillary sinus lift (augmentation) with long implants vs Short implants (5 to 8.5 mm) without sinus augmentation

Patient satisfaction · Patients with missing teeth and an atrophic posterior maxilla, with residual bone height between 4 and 9 mm below the maxillary sinus
1 finding from 1 review

Maxillary sinus lift (augmentation) with long implants vs Short implants (5 to 8.5 mm) without sinus augmentation

Treatment costs · Patients with missing teeth and an atrophic posterior maxilla, with residual bone height between 4 and 9 mm below the maxillary sinus

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Maxillary sinus lift (augmentation) with long implants vs Short implants (5 to 8.5 mm) without sinus augmentation

Patient preference · Patients with missing teeth and an atrophic posterior maxilla, with residual bone height between 4 and 9 mm below the maxillary sinus
1 finding from 1 review

Maxillary sinus lift (augmentation) with long implants vs Short implants (5 to 8.5 mm) without sinus augmentation

Complications (at treated sites) · Patients with missing teeth and an atrophic posterior maxilla, with residual bone height between 4 and 9 mm below the maxillary sinus

Maxillary sinus lift (augmentation) with long implants may leads to higher complications (at treated sites) compared with short implants (5 to 8.5 mm) without sinus augmentation (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Maxillary sinus lift (augmentation) with long implants vs Short implants (5 to 8.5 mm) without sinus augmentation

Augmentation procedure failure · Patients with missing teeth and an atrophic posterior maxilla, with residual bone height between 4 and 9 mm below the maxillary sinus
1 finding from 1 review

Maxillary sinus lift (augmentation) with long implants vs Short implants (5 to 8.5 mm) without sinus augmentation

Implant failure · Patients with missing teeth and an atrophic posterior maxilla, with residual bone height between 4 and 9 mm below the maxillary sinus

Maxillary sinus lift (augmentation) with long implants showed no clear difference in implant failure compared with short implants (5 to 8.5 mm) without sinus augmentation (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Hand mallet (osteotomes) vs Electric mallet

Implant failure · Patients undergoing one-stage crestal maxillary sinus lift without bone grafts (baseline residual bone height about 6.5 mm)

Hand mallet (osteotomes) showed no clear difference in implant failure compared with electric mallet; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Hand mallet (osteotomes) vs Electric mallet

Complication at augmented site · Patients undergoing one-stage crestal maxillary sinus lift without bone grafts (baseline residual bone height about 6.5 mm)

Hand mallet (osteotomes) showed no clear difference in complications at augmented site compared with electric mallet; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Maxillary sinus lift (augmentation) with long implants vs Short implants (5 to 8.5 mm) without sinus augmentation

Prosthesis failure · Patients with missing teeth and an atrophic posterior maxilla, with residual bone height between 4 and 9 mm below the maxillary sinus

Maxillary sinus lift (augmentation) with long implants showed no clear difference in prosthesis failure compared with short implants (5 to 8.5 mm) without sinus augmentation (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Two lag screws vs One lag screw (with arch bars and IMF)

Restoration of function (occlusion) · Adults (16 to 68 years) with mandibular fractures excluding condylar involvement
1 finding from 1 review
  • Restoration of the original occlusion, assessed visually, was similar in both groups (P>0.05); occlusal correction was not achieved in one participant in the two-lag-screws group. Surrogate/proxy outcome.
    1 study
    GRADE not reported

Transbuccal miniplate combined with intraoral approach vs Intraoral approach alone

Restoration of function (malocclusion; interincisor mouth opening) · Adults with fractures of the mandibular angle
1 finding from 1 review
  • Interventions for the management of mandibular fractures 2013 · Cochrane All outcomes
    3 months · Angle of mandible only
    Persistent malocclusion was minimal, reported in one participant in each group at the 3-month follow-up. Mean interincisor mouth opening at 3 months 37.68 mm (range 17 to 50) combined approach vs 38.19 mm (range 22 to…
    1 study
    GRADE not reported