Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

397 questions · 406 findings · 36 reviews · All outcomes

No studies found 134 · 33%GRADE not reported 184 · 45.3%Very low 59 · 14.5%Low 19 · 4.7%Moderate 10 · 2.5%High 0 · 0%

Orthodontic treatment without extraction of permanent teeth vs Orthodontic treatment involving extraction of permanent teeth

Number of visits to complete treatment · Children (80% aged <= 16 years) with a Class II division 2 malocclusion (deep bite and retroclined upper front teeth)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Chlorhexidine rinse (0.12% and 0.2%, pre- and post-extraction) vs placebo or no treatment

Presence of dry socket · Adults (>18 years) having permanent tooth extraction (predominantly mandibular third molars)

Chlorhexidine rinse (0.12% and 0.2%, pre- and post-extraction) probably leads to lower presence of dry socket compared with placebo or no treatment (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Chlorhexidine rinse (0.12% and 0.2%, pre- and post-extraction) vs placebo or no treatment

Adverse events · Adults (>18 years) having permanent tooth extraction (predominantly mandibular third molars)
1 finding from 1 review
  • Local interventions for the management of alveolar osteitis (dry socket) 2022 · Cochrane All outcomes
    Follow-up: median 7 days
    3 trials reported no adverse events. 1 study reported adverse events (alterations in taste, bad taste, staining) in 24/62 in chlorhexidine group versus 0/40 in placebo group, Peto OR = 8.42 (95% CI 3.31 to 21.39). A…
    6 studies
    GRADE not reported

Primary closure of the extraction socket with a mucoperiosteal flap vs Application of platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) without primary closure

MRONJ (incidence proportion) · People on antiresorptive treatment undergoing tooth extraction (at risk of MRONJ)
1 finding from 1 review
  • All participants had complete mucosal coverage without any signs of MRONJ at the final control examination 90 days postoperatively (77 randomised; 1 RCT); no case of postoperative MRONJ in either group; effect not…
    1 study · 77 participants
    GRADE not reported

Primary closure of the extraction socket with a mucoperiosteal flap vs Application of platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) without primary closure

Complications and side effects · People on antiresorptive treatment undergoing tooth extraction (at risk of MRONJ)
1 finding from 1 review

PRP (platelet-rich plasma) in cellulose foam placed in extraction socket vs placebo, no treatment or surveillance only

Incidence of ORN · Adults with head and neck cancer undergoing curative or adjuvant radiotherapy (at risk of osteoradionecrosis of the jaws)

It is very uncertain whether PRP (platelet-rich plasma) in cellulose foam placed in extraction… changes incidence of ORN compared with no treatment/placebo (cellulose foam only) placed in extraction socket (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

PRP (platelet-rich plasma) in cellulose foam placed in extraction socket vs placebo, no treatment or surveillance only

Adverse effects (wound pain) · Adults with head and neck cancer undergoing curative or adjuvant radiotherapy (at risk of osteoradionecrosis of the jaws)
1 finding from 1 review

Maxillary distraction osteogenesis vs Orthognathic surgery (conventional Le Fort I osteotomy)

Long-term skeletal relapse/stability (horizontal movement of A-point) · Adolescents or adults (15 years or older) with an established diagnosis of complete cleft lip and alveolar process, or complete unilateral…

It is very uncertain whether maxillary distraction osteogenesis changes long-term skeletal relapse/stability (horizontal movement of A-point) compared with orthognathic surgery (conventional Le Fort I osteotomy) (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Maxillary distraction osteogenesis vs Orthognathic surgery (conventional Le Fort I osteotomy)

Speech: resonance (hypernasality) (deterioration/improvement) · Adolescents or adults (15 years or older) with an established diagnosis of complete cleft lip and alveolar process, or complete unilateral…

It is very uncertain whether maxillary distraction osteogenesis changes speech: resonance (hypernasality) (deterioration/improvement) compared with orthognathic surgery (conventional Le Fort I osteotomy) (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Maxillary distraction osteogenesis vs Orthognathic surgery (conventional Le Fort I osteotomy)

Clinical morbidities (adverse effects) · Adolescents or adults (15 years or older) with an established diagnosis of complete cleft lip and alveolar process, or complete unilateral…
1 finding from 1 review

Maxillary distraction osteogenesis vs Orthognathic surgery (conventional Le Fort I osteotomy)

Psychological status: social self-esteem (Culture-Free Self-Esteem Inventory subset); also general self-esteem and Social Avoidance and Distress Scale · Adolescents or adults (15 years or older) with an established diagnosis of complete cleft lip and alveolar process, or complete unilateral…
1 finding from 1 review

Maxillary distraction osteogenesis vs Orthognathic surgery (conventional Le Fort I osteotomy)

Midfacial soft tissue changes (facial profile landmarks: pronasale, subnasale, stomion superius, labrale superius) · Adolescents or adults (15 years or older) with an established diagnosis of complete cleft lip and alveolar process, or complete unilateral…

Maxillary distraction osteogenesis showed no clear difference in midfacial soft tissue changes (facial profile landmarks: pronasale,… compared with orthognathic surgery (conventional Le Fort I osteotomy); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Maxillary distraction osteogenesis vs Orthognathic surgery (conventional Le Fort I osteotomy)

Velopharyngeal function (complete velopharyngeal closure; deterioration/improvement) · Adolescents or adults (15 years or older) with an established diagnosis of complete cleft lip and alveolar process, or complete unilateral…

It is very uncertain whether maxillary distraction osteogenesis changes velopharyngeal function (complete velopharyngeal closure;… compared with orthognathic surgery (conventional Le Fort I osteotomy) (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Maxillary distraction osteogenesis vs Orthognathic surgery (conventional Le Fort I osteotomy)

Psychological status: satisfaction with life (Satisfaction With Life Scale, SWLS) · Adolescents or adults (15 years or older) with an established diagnosis of complete cleft lip and alveolar process, or complete unilateral…

It is very uncertain whether maxillary distraction osteogenesis changes psychological status: satisfaction with life (Satisfaction With Life… compared with orthognathic surgery (conventional Le Fort I osteotomy) (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Maxillary distraction osteogenesis vs Orthognathic surgery (conventional Le Fort I osteotomy)

Maxillary advancement (midfacial hard tissue change; Subspinale A-point) · Adolescents or adults (15 years or older) with an established diagnosis of complete cleft lip and alveolar process, or complete unilateral…

It is very uncertain whether maxillary distraction osteogenesis changes maxillary advancement (midfacial hard tissue change; Subspinale… compared with orthognathic surgery (conventional Le Fort I osteotomy) (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Maxillary distraction osteogenesis vs Orthognathic surgery (conventional Le Fort I osteotomy)

Speech: nasal emission · Adolescents or adults (15 years or older) with an established diagnosis of complete cleft lip and alveolar process, or complete unilateral…

Maxillary distraction osteogenesis showed no clear difference in speech: nasal emission compared with orthognathic surgery (conventional Le Fort I osteotomy); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Extraction of the primary (baby) canine (single primary tooth extraction) vs No extraction (non-intervention control)

Reported improvement in the position of the ectopic canine measured from radiographs · Young people aged 9 to 14 years diagnosed with one or both palatally displaced permanent maxillary canines (PDC)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Extraction of the primary (baby) canine (single primary tooth extraction) vs No extraction (non-intervention control)

Root resorption of adjacent permanent teeth caused by the PDC · Young people aged 9 to 14 years diagnosed with one or both palatally displaced permanent maxillary canines (PDC)

Extraction of the primary (baby) canine (single primary tooth… showed no clear difference in root resorption of adjacent permanent teeth caused by the PDC compared with no extraction (non-intervention control); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Extraction of the primary (baby) canine (single primary tooth extraction) vs No extraction (non-intervention control)

Effect of severity of PDC displacement towards the midline on the proportion of successful eruptions · Young people aged 9 to 14 years diagnosed with one or both palatally displaced permanent maxillary canines (PDC)
1 finding from 1 review