What do systematic reviews say?

Effervescent tablets vs Association of brushing and effervescent tablets

Effervescent tablets showed no clear difference in fusobacteria (colony forming units, log-transformed) compared with association of brushing and effervescent tablets; GRADE not reported.

• Interventions for cleaning dentures in adults 2009 · Cochrane All outcomes
  MD 0.04 [-0.33, 0.41]
  1 study · 18 participants
  GRADE not reported

Vertical GBR with autogenous bone (retromolar) vs Vertical GBR with bone substitute (Regenaform)

Vertical GBR with autogenous bone (retromolar) led to higher vertical bone gain compared with vertical GBR with bone substitute (Regenaform); GRADE not reported.

• Interventions for replacing missing teeth: horizontal and vertical bone augmentation techniques for dental implant… 2009 · Cochrane All outcomes

  Up to 1 year post-loading
  MD 0.6 [0.21, 0.99]
  1 study · 5 participants
  GRADE not reported

Autogenous bone block from the chin vs Bovine-derived xenograft (Bio-Oss) plus resorbable barrier

Autogenous bone block from the chin showed no clear difference in prosthesis/implant failure (1 year) compared with 100% Bio-Oss + resorbable barrier; GRADE not reported.

• Interventions for replacing missing teeth: horizontal and vertical bone augmentation techniques for dental implant… 2009 · Cochrane All outcomes

  Up to 1 year post-loading
  OR 0.19 [0.01, 4.07]
  1 study · 62 participants
  GRADE not reported

Brushing vs Association of brushing and effervescent tablets

Brushing led to higher fusobacteria (colony forming units, log-transformed) compared with association of brushing and effervescent tablets; GRADE not reported.

• Interventions for cleaning dentures in adults 2009 · Cochrane All outcomes
  MD 2.86 [2.25, 3.47]
  1 study · 18 participants
  GRADE not reported

Buccal onlay iliac grafts fixed with titanium screws vs Buccal onlay iliac grafts fixed with resorbable screws (split-mouth)

• Interventions for replacing missing teeth: horizontal and vertical bone augmentation techniques for dental implant… 2009 · Cochrane All outcomes

  2 years post-loading
  No statistically significant difference for any outcome; data not shown (Raghoebar 2006)
  1 study · 8 participants
  GRADE not reported

Ultrasonic treatment or microwave disinfection device vs Another method, sham/placebo, or no treatment

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Interventions for cleaning dentures in adults 2009 · Cochrane All outcomes
  The effectiveness of ultrasonic or microwave devices as an intervention for routine use was not studied according to a randomised controlled trial design (Implications for research).
  0 studies
  No studies found

Vertical distraction osteogenesis vs Vertical GBR with non-resorbable barriers + particulate autogenous bone

Vertical distraction osteogenesis showed no clear difference in complication at augmentation + donor site compared with vertical GBR with non-resorbable barriers + particulate autogenous…; GRADE not reported.

• Interventions for replacing missing teeth: horizontal and vertical bone augmentation techniques for dental implant… 2009 · Cochrane All outcomes

  Up to 3 years post-loading
  OR 0.3 [0.04, 2.11]
  1 study · 21 participants
  GRADE not reported

Brushing vs Association of brushing and effervescent tablets

Brushing led to higher total anaerobes (colony forming units, log-transformed) compared with association of brushing and effervescent tablets; GRADE not reported.

• Interventions for cleaning dentures in adults 2009 · Cochrane All outcomes
  MD 5.64 [4.86, 6.42]
  1 study · 18 participants
  GRADE not reported

Lingualised teeth (maxillary anatomic + mandibular non-anatomic; lingualised occlusion scheme) vs Zero-degree teeth (non-anatomic, cuspless)

• Interventions for replacing missing teeth: denture chewing surface designs in edentulous people 2005 · Cochrane All outcomes

  3 weeks per denture set (cross-over)
  No statistically significant difference was found between the two occlusal patterns with regard to the number of adjustments required.
  1 study · 30 participants
  GRADE not reported

Lingualised teeth (maxillary anatomic + mandibular non-anatomic; lingualised occlusion scheme) vs Zero-degree teeth (non-anatomic, cuspless)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Interventions for replacing missing teeth: denture chewing surface designs in edentulous people 2005 · Cochrane All outcomes
  no estimate extracted
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

Lingualised teeth (maxillary anatomic + mandibular non-anatomic; lingualised occlusion scheme) vs Zero-degree teeth (non-anatomic, cuspless)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Interventions for replacing missing teeth: denture chewing surface designs in edentulous people 2005 · Cochrane All outcomes
  no estimate extracted
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

Lingualised teeth (maxillary anatomic + mandibular non-anatomic; lingualised occlusion scheme) vs Zero-degree teeth (non-anatomic, cuspless)

Lingualised teeth (maxillary anatomic + mandibular non-anatomic;… led to higher patient perceived satisfaction (denture preference) compared with zero-degree teeth (non-anatomic, cuspless); GRADE not reported.

• Interventions for replacing missing teeth: denture chewing surface designs in edentulous people 2005 · Cochrane All outcomes

  3 weeks per denture set (cross-over)
  OR 10 [2.04, 48.96]
  1 study · 30 participants
  GRADE not reported

Lingualised teeth (maxillary anatomic + mandibular non-anatomic; lingualised occlusion scheme) vs Zero-degree teeth (non-anatomic, cuspless)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Interventions for replacing missing teeth: denture chewing surface designs in edentulous people 2005 · Cochrane All outcomes
  no estimate extracted
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

Direct resin composite veneer vs Indirect resin composite veneer

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Direct versus indirect veneer restorations for intrinsic dental stains 2004 · Cochrane All outcomes
  Planned outcome; no adverse-reaction data were reported by the included trial.
  0 studies
  No studies found

Direct resin composite veneer vs Indirect resin composite veneer

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Direct versus indirect veneer restorations for intrinsic dental stains 2004 · Cochrane All outcomes
  Planned outcome; pain following treatment was not reported by the included trial (earlier trial publications reported treatment times, not pain).
  0 studies
  No studies found

Direct resin composite veneer vs Indirect resin composite veneer

• Direct versus indirect veneer restorations for intrinsic dental stains 2004 · Cochrane All outcomes

  2 years
  Meijering 1998 (data by restoration, not pooled; no statistical analysis possible). Failures over 2-year follow-up: direct resin composite (n=69) 4 absolute and 14 relative failures; indirect resin composite (n=54) 7…
  1 study · 123 participants
  GRADE not reported

Indirect veneer with no incisal edge reduction vs Indirect veneer with incisal edge reduction (1.5 mm plus short palatal bevel)

• Direct versus indirect veneer restorations for intrinsic dental stains 2004 · Cochrane All outcomes

  2 years
  Meijering 1998 (Table 3): survival percentages by preparation type at 2 years (original/functional/overall) - no incisal edge reduction 98/97/95; incisal reduction 95/90/87. No statistical comparison performed.
  1 study
  GRADE not reported

Direct resin composite veneer vs Indirect resin composite veneer

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Direct versus indirect veneer restorations for intrinsic dental stains 2004 · Cochrane All outcomes
  Planned outcome; cost of treatment was not reported by the included trial.
  0 studies
  No studies found

Direct resin composite veneer vs Indirect resin composite veneer

• Direct versus indirect veneer restorations for intrinsic dental stains 2004 · Cochrane All outcomes

  2 years
  Meijering 1998 (Table 4): patients satisfied at 2 years - direct resin composite 67%, indirect resin composite 82%. No statistical comparison performed.
  1 study
  GRADE not reported

Direct resin composite veneer vs Porcelain (indirect) veneer

• Direct versus indirect veneer restorations for intrinsic dental stains 2004 · Cochrane All outcomes

  2 years
  Meijering 1998 (Table 4): patients satisfied at 2 years - direct resin composite 67%, porcelain 93%. No statistical comparison performed.
  1 study
  GRADE not reported