Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

538 questions · 561 findings · 59 reviews

No studies found 184 · 32.8%GRADE not reported 185 · 33%Very low 86 · 15.3%Low 58 · 10.3%Moderate 38 · 6.8%High 10 · 1.8%

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

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

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

Incidence of successfully erupted PDC that were favourably positioned · Young people aged 9 to 14 years diagnosed with one or both palatally displaced permanent maxillary canines (PDC)

Double primary (canine and first molar) tooth extraction showed no clear difference in incidence of successfully erupted PDC that were favourably positioned compared with single primary (canine) tooth extraction; GRADE not reported.

3 findings from 1 review

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

Any other adverse effects of the interventions, such as gingival disease and demineralisation · 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

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

Number of participants referred for surgical exposure of the PDC · Young people aged 9 to 14 years diagnosed with one or both palatally displaced permanent maxillary canines (PDC)

It is very uncertain whether double primary (canine and first molar) tooth extraction changes number of participants referred for surgical exposure of the PDC compared with single primary (canine) tooth extraction (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

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

Costs and cost‐effectiveness · 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

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

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

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

Patient‐reported outcome measures (PROMs) · 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

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

Time taken for the canine to erupt into the mouth · 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

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

Overall treatment time wearing orthodontic appliances · 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

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

Dento-occlusal results of treatment, measured with the PAR index · 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

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

Gingival and TMJ symptoms · 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

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

Duration of 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

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

Cephalometric measurements (ANB change and front teeth inclination changes) · 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

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