What do systematic reviews say?

Combined paracetamol plus ibuprofen in a single tablet (e.g. paracetamol 1000 mg/ibuprofen 400 mg or 500/200 mg) vs Single drugs given separately (paracetamol 1000 mg or ibuprofen 400 mg)

• Ibuprofen and/or paracetamol (acetaminophen) for pain relief after surgical removal of lower wisdom teeth 2013 · Cochrane All outcomes

  Study period (immediate postoperative)
  The majority of adverse events were minor in nature and usually included nausea, vomiting, headaches and dizziness. Side effect profiles have not been included in a meta-analysis as multiple adverse events were…
  2 studies
  GRADE not reported

Combined paracetamol plus ibuprofen in a single tablet (e.g. paracetamol 1000 mg/ibuprofen 400 mg or 500/200 mg) vs Single drugs given separately (paracetamol 1000 mg or ibuprofen 400 mg)

Combined paracetamol plus ibuprofen in a single tablet (e.g.… probably leads to higher proportion of patients with >50% maximum pain relief (TOTPAR) over 6… compared with single drugs given separately (paracetamol 1000 mg or ibuprofen 400… (moderate certainty).

• Ibuprofen and/or paracetamol (acetaminophen) for pain relief after surgical removal of lower wisdom teeth 2013 · Cochrane All outcomes

  6 hours postdosing · Paracetamol 1000 mg/ibuprofen 400 mg vs paracetamol 1000 mg or ibuprofen 400 mg
  RR 1.77 [1.32, 2.39]
  1 study · 170 participants
  Moderate

Combined paracetamol plus ibuprofen in a single tablet (e.g. paracetamol 1000 mg/ibuprofen 400 mg or 500/200 mg) vs Single drugs given separately (paracetamol 1000 mg or ibuprofen 400 mg)

Combined paracetamol plus ibuprofen in a single tablet (e.g.… leads to higher patients not using rescue medication at 8 hours compared with single drugs given separately (paracetamol 1000 mg or ibuprofen 400… (high certainty).

• Ibuprofen and/or paracetamol (acetaminophen) for pain relief after surgical removal of lower wisdom teeth 2013 · Cochrane All outcomes

  8 hours postdosing · Paracetamol 1000/500 mg/ibuprofen 400/200 mg vs single constituent drugs
  RR 1.60 [1.36, 1.88]
  2 studies · 467 participants
  High

Single full-coverage metal-ceramic crown over composite core and post vs Direct adhesive composite restoration with post (conventional filling, no crown)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Single crowns versus conventional fillings for the restoration of root‐filled teeth 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes
  No data were reported nor measured by the study. The abstract confirms no evidence was available for any secondary outcome.
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

Single full-coverage metal-ceramic crown over composite core and post vs Direct adhesive composite restoration with post (conventional filling, no crown)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Single crowns versus conventional fillings for the restoration of root‐filled teeth 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes
  This outcome was not reported nor measured by the study. The abstract confirms no evidence was available for any secondary outcome.
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

Single full-coverage metal-ceramic crown over composite core and post vs Direct adhesive composite restoration with post (conventional filling, no crown)

• Single crowns versus conventional fillings for the restoration of root‐filled teeth 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes

  3 years
  SoF 'Catastrophic failure of restoration': assumed risk (conventional filling) 0, corresponding risk (single crown) 0; no events in either group so a relative effect was not estimable; 117 participants (1 study); GRADE…
  1 study · 117 participants
  Very low

Single full-coverage metal-ceramic crown over composite core and post vs Direct adhesive composite restoration with post (conventional filling, no crown)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Single crowns versus conventional fillings for the restoration of root‐filled teeth 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes
  No data were reported nor measured by the study. The abstract confirms no evidence was available for any secondary outcome.
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

Single full-coverage metal-ceramic crown over composite core and post vs Direct adhesive composite restoration with post (conventional filling, no crown)

It is very uncertain whether single full-coverage metal-ceramic crown over composite core and post changes non-catastrophic failure of the post compared with direct adhesive composite restoration with post (conventional… (very low certainty).

• Single crowns versus conventional fillings for the restoration of root‐filled teeth 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes

  3 years
  RR 1.96 [0.18, 21.01]
  1 study · 117 participants
  Very low

Single full-coverage metal-ceramic crown over composite core and post vs Direct adhesive composite restoration with post (conventional filling, no crown)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Single crowns versus conventional fillings for the restoration of root‐filled teeth 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes
  No data were reported nor measured by the study. The abstract confirms no evidence was available for any secondary outcome.
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

Single full-coverage metal-ceramic crown over composite core and post vs Direct adhesive composite restoration with post (conventional filling, no crown)

It is very uncertain whether single full-coverage metal-ceramic crown over composite core and post changes non-catastrophic failure of the restoration (requiring further… compared with direct adhesive composite restoration with post (conventional… (very low certainty).

• Single crowns versus conventional fillings for the restoration of root‐filled teeth 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes

  3 years
  RR 0.33 [0.04, 3.05]
  1 study · 117 participants
  Very low

Single-strand superelastic NiTi arch wire vs Coaxial superelastic NiTi arch wire

Single-strand superelastic NiTi arch wire probably leads to lower alignment rate compared with coaxial superelastic NiTi arch wire (moderate certainty).

• Initial arch wires used in orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances 2024 · Cochrane All outcomes

  4 weeks
  MD -2.64 [-4.61, -0.67]
  2 studies · 64 participants
  Moderate

Single-strand superelastic NiTi arch wire vs Coaxial superelastic NiTi arch wire

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Initial arch wires used in orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances 2024 · Cochrane All outcomes
  Time to alignment: not reported
  0 studies
  No studies found

Single-strand superelastic NiTi arch wire vs Coaxial superelastic NiTi arch wire

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Initial arch wires used in orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances 2024 · Cochrane All outcomes
  Pain: not reported
  0 studies
  No studies found

Single-strand superelastic NiTi arch wire vs Coaxial superelastic NiTi arch wire

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Initial arch wires used in orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances 2024 · Cochrane All outcomes
  No studies reported time to next/working arch wire
  0 studies
  No studies found

Single-strand superelastic NiTi arch wire vs Coaxial superelastic NiTi arch wire

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Initial arch wires used in orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances 2024 · Cochrane All outcomes
  Root resorption: not reported
  0 studies
  No studies found

Single-surface ART restoration using high-viscosity glass ionomer vs Multi-surface ART with high-viscosity GIC

Single-surface ART restorations had a low reported mean annual failure rate (about 5%; ungraded).

• Minimal intervention dentistry for managing carious lesions into dentine in primary teeth: an umbrella review. 2022 All outcomes

  First 3 years · Single-surface
  Mean annual failure rate (%) 4.7% (van 't Hof 2006) to 5% (de Amorim 2018)
  Studies not reported
  GRADE not reported

Single-surface ART restoration using high-viscosity glass ionomer vs Multi-surface ART with high-viscosity GIC

Single-surface ART/HVGIC restorations had high reported survival (86% at 3 years), significantly higher than multi-surface restorations (ungraded).

• Minimal intervention dentistry for managing carious lesions into dentine in primary teeth: an umbrella review. 2022 All outcomes

  3 years · Single-surface
  Survival rate (%) 86
  9 studies
  GRADE not reported

Class-I (single-surface) cavity restoration vs Class-II (proximal/multi-surface) cavity restoration

Class-II restorations failed more than Class-I (annual failure 5-28.9% vs 1.2-14.7% in ART studies); low quality of evidence (ungraded).

• Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious primary teeth without pulp therapy: a… 2022 All outcomes

  12-48 months · Mixed (mainly ART school/university studies) · Cavity class (Class-I vs Class-II)
  Annual failure rate (%) Class II 5-28.9%; Class I 1.2-14.7% (ART)
  Studies not reported
  GRADE not reported

No intervention (single-arm cohort estimates) vs No comparator

Sánchez-Pérez et al. 2010 reported an incidence rate of 0.07 per person-year at risk.

• Caries Progression Rates Revisited: A Systematic Review. 2019 All outcomes

  Follow-up of at least 3 years · Western or comparable populations
  Incidence rate per person-year at risk 0.07 [0.06, 0.08]
  1 study
  GRADE not reported
• Caries Progression Rates Revisited: A Systematic Review. 2019 All outcomes

  Follow-up of at least 3 years · Western or comparable populations
  Incidence rate per person-year at risk 0.05 [0.05, 0.05]
  1 study
  GRADE not reported
• Caries Progression Rates Revisited: A Systematic Review. 2019 All outcomes

  Follow-up of at least 3 years · Western or comparable populations
  Incidence rate per person-year at risk 0.11 [0.09, 0.13]
  15 studies · 10768 participants
  GRADE not reported

Single-stage alginate impression (simplified method) vs Two stage-two step zinc-oxide eugenol (ZoE) traditional method

It is very uncertain whether single-stage alginate impression (simplified method) changes participant-reported quality of the denture (general satisfaction) compared with two stage-two step zinc-oxide eugenol (ZoE) traditional method (very low certainty).

• Final‐impression techniques and materials for making complete and removable partial dentures 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes

  6 months
  RR 3.15 [0.14, 72.88]
  1 study · 39 participants
  Very low