Immediate bond strength (MPa) · Glass-ionomer cement bonded to dentin (in vitro), sound or caries-affected
Prior SDF application does not influence the immediate bond strength of glass-ionomer cement to dentin (MD -0.11 MPa, 95% CI -0.54 to 0.31; ungraded).
1 finding from 1 review
Immediate bond strength (MPa) · Glass-ionomer cement bonded to sound dentin (in vitro)
SDF pretreatment without a rinsing step does not affect glass-ionomer cement bond strength to sound dentin (MD 0.26 MPa, 95% CI -0.20 to 0.73; ungraded).
1 finding from 1 review
Immediate bond strength (MPa) · Dental adhesives bonded to sound dentin (in vitro)
A rinsing step after SDF eliminates the negative effect on adhesive bond strength to sound dentin (MD 7.11 MPa, 95% CI -0.57 to 14.79, non-significant; ungraded).
1 finding from 1 review
Postoperative pain intensity in the immediate postobturation period (up to 72 hours), continuous (VAS) · People aged 10 years or above requiring root canal treatment; permanent teeth with completely formed apex and without internal resorption
Single-visit root canal treatment showed no clear difference in postoperative pain intensity in the immediate postobturation period… compared with multiple-visit root canal treatment (two or more visits) (low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Immediate bond strength (MPa) · Dental adhesives bonded to caries-affected dentin (in vitro)
Prior SDF followed by a rinsing step significantly increases adhesive bond strength to caries-affected dentin (MD -4.79 MPa favoring SDF, 95% CI -9.19 to -0.40; ungraded).
1 finding from 1 review
Immediate bond strength (MPa) · Dental adhesives bonded to caries-affected dentin (in vitro)
Only one study assessed SDF without a rinsing step on adhesive bonding to caries-affected dentin (Kucukyilmaz 2016, which reported impaired bond strength); no meta-analysis was possible, so no pooled estimate is available.
1 finding from 1 review
Number of immediate (less than 24 hours) and delayed (24 hours to 10 days) postoperative bleeding episodes requiring intervention · People with haemophilia (A or B) undergoing minor oral surgery or dental extractions
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
Number of immediate (less than 24 hours) and delayed (24 hours to 10 days) postoperative bleeding episodes requiring intervention · People on continuous VKA treatment undergoing minor oral surgery or dental extractions (eligibility included DOACs and all ages; all four…
Antifibrinolytic therapy - locally-applied tranexamic acid (TXA)… led to lower number of immediate and delayed postoperative bleeding episodes… compared with placebo (placebo solution/mouthwash); GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Postoperative pain during the immediate recovery period (VAS 0 to 10) · Adults (>16 years old) undergoing orthognathic surgery
It is very uncertain whether resorbable (bioresorbable) plates or screws for fixation changes postoperative pain during the immediate recovery period (VAS 0 to 10) compared with titanium plates or screws for fixation (very low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Swelling (mean) · Adults (>16 years old) undergoing orthognathic surgery
1 finding from 1 review
Resorbable versus titanium plates for orthognathic surgery 2017 · Cochrane All outcomesUp to 3 years postoperatively
Though Cheung 2004 reported the presence of postoperative swelling, it was only noted in conjunction with infection and pus discharge; assessment of this outcome did not include the use of photography or digital…
1 study · 60 participants
GRADE not reported
Bone gain (horizontal - HDD) · Patients receiving immediate single implants in fresh extraction sockets (maxillary anterior/premolar sites)
Bio-Oss (anorganic bovine bone) showed no clear difference in bone gain (horizontal - HDD) compared with bio-Oss + resorbable barrier; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Vertical bone gain · Patients receiving immediate single implants in fresh extraction sockets (maxillary anterior/premolar sites)
Non-resorbable barrier (guided bone regeneration) showed no clear difference in bone gain (vertical - VDH) compared with resorbable barrier + autogenous bone; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
All treatments resulted in statistically significant bone gain, however no statistically significant differences were found between the three procedures (Chen 2005a). Vertical height of the defect (VDH).
1 study · 25 participants
GRADE not reported
Bone gain (horizontal - HDD) · Patients receiving immediate single implants in fresh extraction sockets (maxillary anterior/premolar sites)
Non-resorbable barrier (guided bone regeneration) showed no clear difference in bone gain (horizontal - HDD) compared with resorbable barrier + autogenous bone; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
All treatments resulted in statistically significant bone gain, however no statistically significant differences were found between the three procedures (Chen 2005a). Horizontal depth of the defect (HDD).
1 study · 25 participants
GRADE not reported
Bone gain (horizontal - HDD) · Patients receiving immediate single implants in fresh extraction sockets (maxillary anterior/premolar sites)
Resorbable barrier (guided bone regeneration) showed no clear difference in bone gain (horizontal - HDD) compared with non-resorbable barrier (guided bone regeneration); GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
All treatments resulted in statistically significant bone gain, however no statistically significant differences were found between the three procedures (Chen 2005a). Horizontal depth of the defect (HDD).
1 study · 23 participants
GRADE not reported
Vertical bone gain · Patients receiving immediate single implants in fresh extraction sockets (maxillary anterior/premolar sites)
Bio-Oss (anorganic bovine bone) showed no clear difference in bone gain (vertical - VDH) compared with bio-Oss + resorbable barrier; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
All treatments resulted in statistically significant bone gain, however no statistically significant differences in bone gain were found between the two procedures for vertical height of the defect (VDH) (Chen 2007).
1 study · 20 participants
GRADE not reported
Major complications at the implant/donor site · Patients receiving immediate single implants in fresh extraction sockets (maxillary anterior/premolar sites)
Non-resorbable barrier (guided bone regeneration) led to lower major complications at the implant/donor site compared with resorbable barrier + autogenous bone; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Four complications occurred: two dehiscences in the resorbable group; one abscess and one dehiscence in the resorbable + autogenous bone group; none in the non-resorbable group. No statistically significant differences…
1 study · 25 participants
GRADE not reported
Vertical bone gain · Patients receiving immediate single implants in fresh extraction sockets (maxillary anterior/premolar sites)
Resorbable barrier (guided bone regeneration) showed no clear difference in bone gain (vertical - VDH) compared with non-resorbable barrier (guided bone regeneration); GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
All treatments resulted in statistically significant bone gain, however no statistically significant differences were found between the three procedures (Chen 2005a). Vertical height of the defect (VDH).
1 study · 23 participants
GRADE not reported
Vertical bone gain · Patients receiving immediate single implants in fresh extraction sockets (maxillary anterior/premolar sites)
Resorbable barrier (guided bone regeneration) showed no clear difference in bone gain (vertical - VDH) compared with resorbable barrier + autogenous bone; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
All treatments resulted in statistically significant bone gain, however no statistically significant differences were found between the three procedures (Chen 2005a). Vertical height of the defect (VDH).
1 study · 24 participants
GRADE not reported
Bone gain (horizontal - HDD) · Patients receiving immediate single implants in fresh extraction sockets (maxillary anterior/premolar sites)
Resorbable barrier (guided bone regeneration) showed no clear difference in bone gain (horizontal - HDD) compared with resorbable barrier + autogenous bone; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
All treatments resulted in statistically significant bone gain, however no statistically significant differences were found between the three procedures (Chen 2005a). Horizontal depth of the defect (HDD).
1 study · 24 participants
GRADE not reported
Major complications at the implant/donor site · Patients receiving immediate single implants in fresh extraction sockets (maxillary anterior/premolar sites)
Resorbable barrier (guided bone regeneration) led to lower major complications at the implant/donor site compared with resorbable barrier + autogenous bone; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Four complications occurred: two dehiscences in the resorbable group; one abscess and one dehiscence in the resorbable + autogenous bone group; none in the non-resorbable group. No statistically significant differences…
1 study · 24 participants
GRADE not reported