evidencegaps
Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

104 questions · 109 findings · 23 reviews · All outcomes

Sort:Best matchNewestHighest certaintyDownload CSV
No studies found 5 · 4.6%GRADE not reported 81 · 74.3%Very low 13 · 11.9%Low 8 · 7.3%Moderate 2 · 1.8%High 0 · 0%

Amine fluoride/stannous fluoride (AmF/SnF2) mouthwash vs Chlorhexidine mouthwash

Patient satisfaction (desire for future use) · Adults with dental implants and healthy peri-implant soft tissues at baseline

Amine fluoride/stannous fluoride (AmF/SnF2) mouthwash led to higher patient satisfaction (desire for future use) compared with chlorhexidine mouthwash; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Hyaluronic acid gel (brushing) vs Chlorhexidine, 0.2% to 2% (solution or gel)

Change in probing pocket depth (PPD) · Adults with dental implants and healthy peri-implant soft tissues at baseline

Hyaluronic acid gel (brushing) showed no clear difference in change in probing pocket depth compared with chlorhexidine gel (brushing); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Phosphoric etching (acid) gel vs Mechanical debridement and polishing

Plaque · Adults with dental implants and healthy peri-implant soft tissues at baseline

Phosphoric etching (acid) gel showed no clear difference in plaque compared with mechanical debridement and polishing; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Gum chewing (sugar-free) vs Within-subject before/after comparison of soft gum vs hard gum (no no-gum control)

Oral mucosal moisture · Elderly (>60 years) and medically compromised adults with xerostomia / dry mouth

One small study found that chewing hard (but not soft) gum increased oral mucosal moisture.

1 finding from 1 review

Colour clinical examination (visual shade categorization: yellow, light brown, dark brown, black) vs Hardness clinical examination (tactile texture categorization: soft, medium/leathery, hard)

Discriminant power for caries severity: effect size (f) for microbial load (log10 CFU) between lesion categories · Patients with dentine carious lesions (deciduous/permanent teeth; children and adults)

The weighted effect size favoured hardness (f=2.62) over colour (f=0.46) for discriminating microbial load, supporting hardness as the more reliable examination (ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

color contrast: black vs dark brown/light brown/yellow vs hardness contrast: soft vs medium/hard

total microbial load (log10 CFU) · humans with open primary dentine caries

In one study, hardness category differences exceeded color category differences; no meta-analysis was conducted.

1 finding from 1 review

Colour clinical examination (visual shade categorization: yellow, light brown, dark brown, black) vs Hardness clinical examination (tactile texture categorization: soft, medium/leathery, hard)

Discriminant power for caries severity: mean difference in log10 CFU (microbial load) between lesion categories · Patients with dentine carious lesions (deciduous/permanent teeth; children and adults)

For yellow-vs-other colour compared with soft-vs-harder hardness, hardness was significantly the more discriminant test (pooled WMD -3.87, 95% CI -4.46 to -2.87; ungraded).

6 findings from 1 review
Show 3 more findings

Open reduction and fixation vs Closed (conservative) management (no active intervention other than soft diet, analgesics or antibiotics; or intermaxillary/maxillary-mandibular fixation with rigid or elastic traction)

Outcome not reported · Adults, over 18 years of age, with unilateral or bilateral fractures of the mandibular condyles

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Subepithelial connective tissue graft (palate) at implant placement vs No augmentation

Marginal bone level change · Partially edentulous patients receiving posterior mandibular implants

Subepithelial connective tissue graft (palate) at implant placement showed no clear difference in peri-implant marginal bone level change compared with no augmentation; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Subepithelial connective tissue graft (palate) at implant placement vs No augmentation

Aesthetic preference evaluated by the patient (split-mouth design studies) · Partially edentulous patients receiving posterior mandibular implants

Subepithelial connective tissue graft (palate) at implant placement led to lower patient preference (aesthetics evaluated by patients) compared with no augmentation; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Xenogeneic collagen matrix (porcine; Mucograft) vs Connective tissue autograft (palate)

Keratinised mucosa height change · Patients with implant-supported prostheses and <=1 mm keratinised mucosa

Xenogeneic collagen matrix (porcine; Mucograft) showed no clear difference in keratinised mucosa height change compared with connective tissue autograft (palate); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Xenogeneic collagen matrix (porcine; Mucograft) vs Connective tissue autograft (palate)

Recession (aesthetics) · Patients with implant-supported prostheses and <=1 mm keratinised mucosa

Xenogeneic collagen matrix (porcine; Mucograft) showed no clear difference in recession (aesthetics) compared with connective tissue autograft (palate); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Erbium:YAG laser vs Flap elevation at implant exposure

Biological complications · Patients undergoing implant exposure (second-stage surgery)

Erbium:YAG laser (implant exposure) showed no clear difference in biological complications compared with flap elevation at implant exposure; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review