Aesthetics · Adults (18 years or older) with one missing tooth in the aesthetic zone needing an implant-supported single crown
1 finding from 1 review
Primary outcome aesthetic evaluation data were reported as the frequency of distribution of the Implant Crown Aesthetic Index (ICAI); no comparative summary estimate was presented.
2 studies · 47 participants
Very low
Aesthetics evaluated by the patient · Adults (18 years or older) needing replacement of one premolar or incisor with a cantilevered fixed dental prosthesis
It is very uncertain whether metal-free cantilevered FDPs (feldspathic-veneered zirconia) changes aesthetic evaluation (patient VAS) compared with metal-ceramic cantilevered FDPs (very low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Pain (primary dentition) · Children with carious primary teeth
ART using H-GIC showed no clear difference in pain (primary dentition) compared with conventional treatment using amalgam; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
OR 1.44 [0.45, 4.60]
1 study
GRADE not reported
Restoration failure (permanent, mature dentition; root surfaces) · Older adults with root caries in permanent (mature) teeth (mean age 75 years)
It is very uncertain whether ART using resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RM-GIC) changes restoration failure (permanent, mature dentition; root surfaces) compared with conventional treatment using RM-GIC (very low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Marginal deterioration of the restoration and fracture of the remaining tooth tissue · Adults and adolescents with permanent posterior molar and premolar teeth suitable for Class I and II, but excluding Class V, amalgam…
1 finding from 1 review
Marginal deterioration of the restoration and fracture of the remaining tooth tissue - Follow‐up: mean 24 months | Study population | Relative effect (95% CI): Not estimable | Number of participants (studies): 31 (1…
1 study · 31 participants
Low
Restoration survival · Adults and adolescents with permanent posterior molar and premolar teeth suitable for Class I and II, but excluding Class V, amalgam…
1 finding from 1 review
Survival of the restoration - Follow‐up: mean 24 months | Illustrative comparative risks: Assumed risk (Control) See comment; Corresponding risk (Adhesive bonding) See comment | Relative effect (95% CI): Not estimable…
1 study · 31 participants
Low
Economic data: direct costs of materials and any reported associated indirect costs · Adults and adolescents with permanent posterior molar and premolar teeth suitable for Class I and II, but excluding Class V, amalgam…
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
Marginal integrity of restoration · Children, adolescents and adults with caries in deciduous and permanent teeth (age 3.5 to 84 years)
Laser (Er:YAG, Er,Cr:YSGG, or Nd:YAG) showed no clear difference in marginal integrity of restorations compared with conventional mechanical caries removal (standard drill; handpiece…; GRADE not reported.
3 findings from 1 review
Participant discomfort (vibration, smell, noise) · Children, adolescents and adults with caries in deciduous and permanent teeth (age 3.5 to 84 years)
1 finding from 1 review
Pulpal inflammation or necrosis · Children, adolescents and adults with caries in deciduous and permanent teeth (age 3.5 to 84 years)
It is very uncertain whether laser (Er:YAG, Er,Cr:YSGG, or Nd:YAG) changes pulpal inflammation or necrosis compared with conventional mechanical caries removal (standard drill; handpiece… (very low certainty).
3 findings from 1 review
Restoration survival · Children, adolescents and adults with caries in deciduous and permanent teeth (age 3.5 to 84 years)
It is very uncertain whether laser (Er:YAG, Er,Cr:YSGG, or Nd:YAG) changes durability of restoration compared with conventional mechanical caries removal (standard drill; handpiece… (very low certainty).
3 findings from 1 review
Operator preference/fatigue in operator · Children, adolescents and adults with caries in deciduous and permanent teeth (age 3.5 to 84 years)
1 finding from 1 review
Caries removal (clinical) · Children, adolescents and adults with caries in deciduous and permanent teeth (age 3.5 to 84 years)
Laser (Er:YAG, Er,Cr:YSGG, or Nd:YAG) showed no clear difference in caries removal (clinical) compared with conventional mechanical caries removal (standard drill; handpiece… (low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Duration of treatment · Children, adolescents and adults with caries in deciduous and permanent teeth (age 3.5 to 84 years)
Laser (Er:YAG, Er,Cr:YSGG, or Nd:YAG) led to higher duration of treatment compared with conventional mechanical caries removal (standard drill; handpiece…; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
MD 0.90 [0.59, 1.21]
4 studies
GRADE not reported
Laser (Er:YAG, Er,Cr:YSGG, or Nd:YAG) vs Other caries removal systems (chemo-mechanical, sono-abrasion, or air-abrasion)
Outcome not reported · Children, adolescents and adults with caries in deciduous and permanent teeth (age 3.5 to 84 years)
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
'Types of interventions' allowed comparison of laser with other caries-removal systems (chemo-mechanical, sono-abrasion, air-abrasion); no included study used such a comparator (all nine included trials compared laser…
Studies not reported
No studies found
Dental caries: dmfs increment (primary teeth) · Children and adolescents aged 16 years or less
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
Secondary caries · Children, adolescents and adults with caries in deciduous and permanent teeth (age 3.5 to 84 years)
1 finding from 1 review
Proportion developing new caries · Children and adolescents aged 16 years or less
Fluoride mouthrinse (any fluoride agent, concentration, volume,… showed no clear difference in proportion of children developing one or more new caries compared with placebo or no treatment; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Mucosal irritation / oral soft tissue allergic reaction (signs of sensitivity) · Children and adolescents aged 16 years or less
1 finding from 1 review
One trial (Rugg-Gunn 1973) reported incompletely on oral soft tissue irritation/signs of sensitivity (allergic reaction): "no cases of mucosal hypersensitivity after periodical examinations of every subject". 434…
1 study · 434 participants
Very low
Signs of acute toxicity during gel application (nausea, gagging, vomiting) · Children and adolescents aged 16 years or less
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review