Altered fractionation radiotherapy plus chemotherapy vs Chemoradiotherapy with standard (conventional) fractionation
Outcome not reported · People with primary squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity (ICD-O C01-C06) or oropharynx (ICD-O C09-C10); head and neck cancer trials…
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
Disease-free survival · People with primary squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity (ICD-O C01-C06) or oropharynx (ICD-O C09-C10); head and neck cancer trials…
1 finding from 1 review
Accelerated vs conventional, disease free survival: both trials reported this, but substantial clinical and statistical heterogeneity (P = 0.0004, I2 = 92%) meant a pooled analysis was not reported (Analysis 1.3).
2 studies
GRADE not reported
Disease-free survival · People with primary squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity (ICD-O C01-C06) or oropharynx (ICD-O C09-C10); head and neck cancer trials…
1 finding from 1 review
Locoregional control · People with primary squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity (ICD-O C01-C06) or oropharynx (ICD-O C09-C10); head and neck cancer trials…
Pre-operative radiotherapy (plus surgery) showed no clear difference in locoregional control compared with surgery alone; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
RR 0.63 [0.28, 1.46]
1 study
GRADE not reported
Altered fractionation radiotherapy vs Chemoradiotherapy (concurrent, standard fractionation)
Outcome not reported · People with primary squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity (ICD-O C01-C06) or oropharynx (ICD-O C09-C10); head and neck cancer trials…
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
Restoration failure · Children aged 12 years or younger with tooth decay involving at least one tooth in the primary dentition, symptomatic or symptom free
Aesthetic (resin-veneered) crowns showed no clear difference in restoration failure at 6 months compared with conventional metal (stainless steel) crowns; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Secondary caries · Children aged 12 years or younger with tooth decay involving at least one tooth in the primary dentition, symptomatic or symptom free
Compomer (Dyract) showed no clear difference in secondary caries at 24 months compared with amalgam (Tytin); GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Marginal integrity (cervical) failures at 24 months · Children aged 12 years or younger with tooth decay involving at least one tooth in the primary dentition, symptomatic or symptom free
Compomer (Dyract) led to lower marginal integrity (cervical) failures at 24 months compared with amalgam (Tytin); GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Surface texture failures at 24 months · Children aged 12 years or younger with tooth decay involving at least one tooth in the primary dentition, symptomatic or symptom free
Compomer (Dyract) showed no clear difference in surface texture failures at 24 months compared with amalgam (Tytin); GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Occlusion · Children aged 12 years or younger with tooth decay involving at least one tooth in the primary dentition, symptomatic or symptom free
Aesthetic (resin-veneered) crowns led to lower occlusion at 6 months compared with conventional metal (stainless steel) crowns; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Cervical gaps on bitewing X-rays at 24 months · Children aged 12 years or younger with tooth decay involving at least one tooth in the primary dentition, symptomatic or symptom free
Compomer (Dyract) showed no clear difference in cervical gaps on bitewing X-rays at 24 months compared with amalgam (Tytin); GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Proximal contact at 6 months · Children aged 12 years or younger with tooth decay involving at least one tooth in the primary dentition, symptomatic or symptom free
Aesthetic (resin-veneered) crowns led to lower proximal contact at 6 months compared with conventional metal (stainless steel) crowns; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Dental fillings (restorations) vs Dental extractions
Outcome not reported · Children aged 12 years or younger with tooth decay involving at least one tooth in the primary dentition, symptomatic or symptom free
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
Marginal integrity of restoration · Children aged 12 years or younger with tooth decay involving at least one tooth in the primary dentition, symptomatic or symptom free
Aesthetic (resin-veneered) crowns led to lower marginal integrity at 6 months compared with conventional metal (stainless steel) crowns; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Marginal integrity, wear, surface texture, staining and secondary caries (Ryge criteria) at 6-12 months · Children aged 12 years or younger with tooth decay involving at least one tooth in the primary dentition, symptomatic or symptom free
1 finding from 1 review
Marginal integrity, wear, surface texture, axial contour, staining and secondary caries (Ryge criteria) at 6 and 12 months: odds ratios not estimable - no events recorded, implying equal performance of the two materials.
1 study · 60 participants
GRADE not reported
Marginal integrity (occlusal) failures at 24 months · Children aged 12 years or younger with tooth decay involving at least one tooth in the primary dentition, symptomatic or symptom free
Compomer (Dyract) showed no clear difference in marginal integrity (occlusal) failures at 24 months compared with amalgam (Tytin); GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Radiolucencies on bitewing X-rays at 24 months · Children aged 12 years or younger with tooth decay involving at least one tooth in the primary dentition, symptomatic or symptom free
Compomer (Dyract) showed no clear difference in radiolucencies on bitewing X-rays at 24 months compared with amalgam (Tytin); GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Dental fillings (restorations) vs No treatment
Outcome not reported · Children aged 12 years or younger with tooth decay involving at least one tooth in the primary dentition, symptomatic or symptom free
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
Replacement (failure) of Class II restoration at 12 months · Children aged 12 years or younger with tooth decay involving at least one tooth in the primary dentition, symptomatic or symptom free
Resin-modified glass ionomer (Vitremer) showed no clear difference in replacement (failure) of Class II restoration at 12 months compared with amalgam; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Gingival health at 6 months · Children aged 12 years or younger with tooth decay involving at least one tooth in the primary dentition, symptomatic or symptom free
Aesthetic (resin-veneered) crowns showed no clear difference in gingival health at 6 months compared with conventional metal (stainless steel) crowns; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review