What do systematic reviews say?

Any denture cleansing method (mechanical or chemical) vs Another therapy, placebo, or no treatment

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Interventions for cleaning dentures in adults 2009 · Cochrane All outcomes
  Noticeable absence of reports about costs of materials associated with denture cleansing methods; no included study assessed costs (Discussion; Implications for research).
  0 studies
  No studies found

Any denture cleansing method (mechanical or chemical) vs Another method, sham/placebo, or no treatment

• Interventions for cleaning dentures in adults 2009 · Cochrane All outcomes
  Although six RCTs were included in this review, the wide range of different interventions and outcome variables did not permit pooling of data in a meta-analysis. Isolated reports indicated that chemicals and brushing…
  6 studies
  GRADE not reported

Any denture cleansing method (mechanical or chemical) vs Another therapy, placebo, or no treatment

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Interventions for cleaning dentures in adults 2009 · Cochrane All outcomes
  Noticeable absence of reports about adverse effects; no included study assessed the extent of adverse effects (for example the aftertaste of sodium hypochlorite, or mechanical or chemical damage to denture materials)…
  0 studies
  No studies found

Any denture cleansing method (mechanical or chemical) 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
  No included study assessed removable partial denture (RPD) wearers; all six included trials assessed complete denture wearers (Discussion; Implications for research: 'No included study assessed removable partial…
  0 studies
  No studies found

Any attachment system for maxillary implant overdentures vs A different attachment system for maxillary implant overdentures

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Interventions for replacing missing teeth: attachment systems for implant overdentures in edentulous jaws 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes
  no estimate extracted
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

Chemotherapy (any regimen; added to, or compared with, locoregional treatment) vs Locoregional treatment and/or an alternative chemotherapy regimen

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Interventions for the treatment of oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancer: chemotherapy 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes
  Quality of life was a planned (protocol) outcome but no included trial provided usable quality-of-life data; the protocol was modified to report only survival/response outcomes.
  0 studies
  No studies found

Chemotherapy (any regimen; added to, or compared with, locoregional treatment) vs Locoregional treatment and/or an alternative chemotherapy regimen

• Interventions for the treatment of oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancer: chemotherapy 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes
  Harms/toxicity were planned but very little quantitative data suitable for analysis were found; toxicity reported narratively and not quantified or GRADE-rated.
  Studies not reported
  GRADE not reported

Zygomatic implants without bone grafts (as a complete alternative to any bone augmentation procedure) vs Conventional dental implants in augmented maxillae

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Interventions for replacing missing teeth: dental implants in zygomatic bone for the rehabilitation of the severely… 2013 · Cochrane All outcomes

  At least 1 year in function
  Results (Effects of interventions): we could not identify any eligible randomised controlled trials (RCTs).
  0 studies
  No studies found

Zygomatic implants without bone grafts (as a complete alternative to any bone augmentation procedure) vs Conventional dental implants in augmented maxillae

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Interventions for replacing missing teeth: dental implants in zygomatic bone for the rehabilitation of the severely… 2013 · Cochrane All outcomes

  At least 1 year in function
  Results (Effects of interventions): we could not identify any eligible randomised controlled trials (RCTs).
  0 studies
  No studies found

Zygomatic implants without bone grafts (as a complete alternative to any bone augmentation procedure) vs Conventional dental implants in augmented maxillae

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Interventions for replacing missing teeth: dental implants in zygomatic bone for the rehabilitation of the severely… 2013 · Cochrane All outcomes

  At least 1 year in function
  Summary of findings 'Zygomatic implants versus conventional implants'; Prosthesis failure: Assumed risk (conventional) Low risk population 10 per 1000, High risk population 100 per 1000; Corresponding risk (zygomatic)…
  0 studies
  No studies found

Zygomatic implants without bone grafts (as a complete alternative to any bone augmentation procedure) vs Conventional dental implants in augmented maxillae

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Interventions for replacing missing teeth: dental implants in zygomatic bone for the rehabilitation of the severely… 2013 · Cochrane All outcomes

  At least 1 year in function
  Results (Effects of interventions): we could not identify any eligible randomised controlled trials (RCTs).
  0 studies
  No studies found

Zygomatic implants without bone grafts (as a complete alternative to any bone augmentation procedure) vs Conventional dental implants in augmented maxillae

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Interventions for replacing missing teeth: dental implants in zygomatic bone for the rehabilitation of the severely… 2013 · Cochrane All outcomes

  At least 1 year in function
  Results (Effects of interventions): we could not identify any eligible randomised controlled trials (RCTs).
  0 studies
  No studies found

Double primary (canine and first molar) tooth extraction vs Single primary (canine) tooth extraction

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Interventions for promoting the eruption of palatally displaced permanent canine teeth, without the need for surgical… 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes
  The studies did not report adverse events.
  0 studies
  No studies found

The wand (computer-controlled LA delivery system) vs other local anaesthetic

• Interventions for increasing acceptance of local anaesthetic in children and adolescents having dental treatment 2020 · Cochrane All outcomes

  During LA (injection is the intervention)
  pain-related behaviour (any disruptive behaviour/sudden reaction/movement); 4 studies reported a benefit in using the wand while the remaining studies results suggested no difference between the 2 methods of delivering…
  6 studies · 704 participants
  Very low

Counter-stimulation or distraction vs Conventional treatment

It is very uncertain whether counter-stimulation or distraction changes self- or observational assessment of intraoperative… compared with conventional treatment (very low certainty).

• Interventions for increasing acceptance of local anaesthetic in children and adolescents having dental treatment 2020 · Cochrane All outcomes

  Immediately before or during LA
  RR 0.12 [0.04, 0.34]
  1 study · 134 participants
  Very low

The wand (computer-controlled LA delivery system) vs Sleeper One (electronic LA delivery system)

It is very uncertain whether the wand (computer-controlled LA delivery system) changes self- or observational assessment of intraoperative… compared with sleeper One (electronic LA delivery system) (very low certainty).

• Interventions for increasing acceptance of local anaesthetic in children and adolescents having dental treatment 2020 · Cochrane All outcomes

  During LA (injection is the intervention)
  MD 0.06 [0.01, 0.11]
  1 study · 112 participants
  Very low

Keratinocyte growth factor (KGF; palifermin or repifermin), intravenous vs placebo

Keratinocyte growth factor (KGF; palifermin or repifermin),… showed no clear difference in oral mucositis (any severity) compared with placebo; GRADE not reported.

• Interventions for preventing oral mucositis in patients with cancer receiving treatment: cytokines and growth factors 2017 · Cochrane All outcomes

  BMT/SCT after conditioning for haematological cancers
  RR 0.96 [0.88, 1.05]
  4 studies · 655 participants
  GRADE not reported
• Interventions for preventing oral mucositis in patients with cancer receiving treatment: cytokines and growth factors 2017 · Cochrane All outcomes

  Children
  Two studies of KGF versus placebo in children were unclear in reporting; no usable data could be presented
  2 studies
  GRADE not reported
• Interventions for preventing oral mucositis in patients with cancer receiving treatment: cytokines and growth factors 2017 · Cochrane All outcomes

  RT to head and neck with cisplatin/fluorouracil
  RR 0.95 [0.90, 1.00]
  2 studies · 374 participants
  GRADE not reported

GM-CSF vs placebo or no treatment

Granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) showed no clear difference in oral mucositis (any severity) compared with placebo or no treatment; GRADE not reported.

• Interventions for preventing oral mucositis in patients with cancer receiving treatment: cytokines and growth factors 2017 · Cochrane All outcomes

  BMT/SCT after conditioning for haematological cancers
  RR 0.91 [0.80, 1.04]
  1 study · 90 participants
  GRADE not reported
• Interventions for preventing oral mucositis in patients with cancer receiving treatment: cytokines and growth factors 2017 · Cochrane All outcomes

  RT to head and neck
  RR 1.01 [0.82, 1.23]
  1 study · 29 participants
  GRADE not reported

Granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF; pegfilgrastim, single dose) vs Granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF; filgrastim, multiple doses)

Granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF; pegfilgrastim, single… showed no clear difference in oral mucositis (any severity) compared with granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF; filgrastim, multiple…; GRADE not reported.

• Interventions for preventing oral mucositis in patients with cancer receiving treatment: cytokines and growth factors 2017 · Cochrane All outcomes

  Children
  RR 1.02 [0.82, 1.27]
  1 study · 61 participants
  GRADE not reported

Keratinocyte growth factor (KGF; palifermin or repifermin), intravenous vs Chlorhexidine mouthwash

Keratinocyte growth factor (KGF), intravenous led to lower oral mucositis (any severity) compared with chlorhexidine mouthwash; GRADE not reported.

• Interventions for preventing oral mucositis in patients with cancer receiving treatment: cytokines and growth factors 2017 · Cochrane All outcomes

  Children
  RR 0.67 [0.54, 0.85]
  1 study · 90 participants
  GRADE not reported