What do systematic reviews say?

Pre-radiotherapy extraction of healthy molar teeth vs Conservative treatment (leaving the teeth in place during radiotherapy, with oral health education and disease prevention: oral hygiene, fluoride, diet advice)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Dental extractions prior to radiotherapy to the jaws for reducing post‐radiotherapy dental complications 2013 · Cochrane All outcomes
  no estimate extracted
  0 studies
  No studies found

Pre-radiotherapy extraction of diseased molar teeth vs Conservative treatment (restoration of the teeth and leaving them in place during radiotherapy, with oral health education and disease prevention: oral hygiene, fluoride, diet advice)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Dental extractions prior to radiotherapy to the jaws for reducing post‐radiotherapy dental complications 2013 · Cochrane All outcomes
  no estimate extracted
  0 studies
  No studies found

Pre-radiotherapy extraction of diseased molar teeth vs Conservative treatment (restoration of the teeth and leaving them in place during radiotherapy, with oral health education and disease prevention: oral hygiene, fluoride, diet advice)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Dental extractions prior to radiotherapy to the jaws for reducing post‐radiotherapy dental complications 2013 · Cochrane All outcomes
  no estimate extracted
  0 studies
  No studies found

Pre-radiotherapy extraction of healthy molar teeth vs Conservative treatment (leaving the teeth in place during radiotherapy, with oral health education and disease prevention: oral hygiene, fluoride, diet advice)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Dental extractions prior to radiotherapy to the jaws for reducing post‐radiotherapy dental complications 2013 · Cochrane All outcomes
  no estimate extracted
  0 studies
  No studies found

Pre-radiotherapy extraction of healthy molar teeth vs Conservative treatment (leaving the teeth in place during radiotherapy, with oral health education and disease prevention: oral hygiene, fluoride, diet advice)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Dental extractions prior to radiotherapy to the jaws for reducing post‐radiotherapy dental complications 2013 · Cochrane All outcomes
  no estimate extracted
  0 studies
  No studies found

Secondary alveolar bone grafting performed at one timing (e.g. early secondary grafting) vs Secondary alveolar bone grafting performed at a different / optimal timing (e.g. late secondary grafting)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Secondary bone grafting for alveolar cleft in children with cleft lip or cleft lip and palate 2011 · Cochrane All outcomes
  Furthermore, no RCTs were found to study the optimal timing ... with secondary bone grafting surgery. This systematic review has not been able to report all the objectives described in the protocol.
  0 studies
  No studies found

Secondary alveolar bone grafting with a given sequence of orthodontic treatment (e.g. orthodontics before grafting) vs Secondary alveolar bone grafting with a different sequence of orthodontic treatment (e.g. orthodontics after grafting)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Secondary bone grafting for alveolar cleft in children with cleft lip or cleft lip and palate 2011 · Cochrane All outcomes
  No RCTs were found to study ... the sequence of orthodontic treatment with secondary bone grafting surgery.
  0 studies
  No studies found

Traditional iliac bone graft plus fibrin glue vs Traditional iliac bone graft alone

Traditional iliac bone graft plus fibrin glue led to higher radiographic assessment: coronal bone volume (cm3) compared with traditional iliac bone graft alone; GRADE not reported.

• Secondary bone grafting for alveolar cleft in children with cleft lip or cleft lip and palate 2011 · Cochrane All outcomes

  At least 3 months
  MD 42.62 [20.99, 64.25]
  1 study · 27 participants
  GRADE not reported

Traditional iliac bone graft plus fibrin glue vs Traditional iliac bone graft alone

Traditional iliac bone graft plus fibrin glue showed no clear difference in postoperative complication: wound infection compared with traditional iliac bone graft alone; GRADE not reported.

• Secondary bone grafting for alveolar cleft in children with cleft lip or cleft lip and palate 2011 · Cochrane All outcomes

  At least 3 months
  RR 3.23 [0.14, 100]
  1 study · 27 participants
  GRADE not reported

Traditional iliac bone graft plus fibrin glue vs Traditional iliac bone graft alone

Traditional iliac bone graft plus fibrin glue led to higher radiographic assessment: coronal bone density (Hounsfield units) compared with traditional iliac bone graft alone; GRADE not reported.

• Secondary bone grafting for alveolar cleft in children with cleft lip or cleft lip and palate 2011 · Cochrane All outcomes

  At least 3 months
  MD 150.89 [3.45, 298.33]
  1 study · 27 participants
  GRADE not reported

Traditional iliac bone graft plus fibrin glue vs Traditional iliac bone graft alone

Traditional iliac bone graft plus fibrin glue showed no clear difference in postoperative complication: wound dehiscence compared with traditional iliac bone graft alone; GRADE not reported.

• Secondary bone grafting for alveolar cleft in children with cleft lip or cleft lip and palate 2011 · Cochrane All outcomes

  At least 3 months
  RR 0.36 [0.04, 3.03]
  1 study · 27 participants
  GRADE not reported

Open reduction and fixation vs Closed (conservative) management (no active intervention other than soft diet, analgesics or antibiotics; or intermaxillary/maxillary-mandibular fixation with rigid or elastic traction)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Interventions for the treatment of fractures of the mandibular condyle 2010 · Cochrane All outcomes
  no estimate extracted
  0 studies
  No studies found

Risk‐reducing salpingo‐oophorectomy (RRSO) vs no RRSO

It is very uncertain whether risk‐reducing salpingo‐oophorectomy (RRSO) changes overall survival: BRCA1 or BRCA2 compared with no RRSO (very low certainty).

• Risk‐reducing bilateral salpingo‐oophorectomy in women with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  HR 0.32 [0.19, 0.54]
  3 studies · 2548 participants
  Very low

Risk‐reducing salpingo‐oophorectomy (RRSO) vs no RRSO according to BRCA mutation status

It is very uncertain whether risk‐reducing salpingo‐oophorectomy (RRSO) changes HGSC mortality: BRCA1 only compared with no RRSO according to BRCA mutation status (very low certainty).

• Risk‐reducing bilateral salpingo‐oophorectomy in women with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  HR 0.1 [0.02, 0.41]
  2 studies · 1983 participants
  Very low

Risk‐reducing salpingo‐oophorectomy (RRSO) vs no RRSO according to BRCA mutation status

• Risk‐reducing bilateral salpingo‐oophorectomy in women with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  2 studies · 1983 participants
  Very low

Risk‐reducing salpingo‐oophorectomy (RRSO) vs no RRSO according to BRCA mutation status

It is very uncertain whether risk‐reducing salpingo‐oophorectomy (RRSO) changes breast cancer mortality: BRCA1 only compared with no RRSO according to BRCA mutation status (very low certainty).

• Risk‐reducing bilateral salpingo‐oophorectomy in women with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  HR 0.45 [0.3, 0.67]
  4 studies · 2203 participants
  Very low

Risk‐reducing salpingo‐oophorectomy (RRSO) vs no RRSO according to BRCA mutation status

It is very uncertain whether risk‐reducing salpingo‐oophorectomy (RRSO) changes breast cancer mortality: BRCA2 only compared with no RRSO according to BRCA mutation status (very low certainty).

• Risk‐reducing bilateral salpingo‐oophorectomy in women with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  HR 0.88 [0.42, 1.87]
  3 studies · 5882 participants
  Very low

Risk‐reducing salpingo‐oophorectomy (RRSO) vs no RRSO according to BRCA mutation status

• Risk‐reducing bilateral salpingo‐oophorectomy in women with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  1 study · 98 participants
  Very low

Risk‐reducing salpingo‐oophorectomy (RRSO) vs no RRSO

• Risk‐reducing bilateral salpingo‐oophorectomy in women with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  0 studies · 0 participants
  GRADE not reported

Risk‐reducing salpingo‐oophorectomy (RRSO) vs no RRSO

It is very uncertain whether risk‐reducing salpingo‐oophorectomy (RRSO) changes overall survival: RRSO and RRM vs no RRSO compared with no RRSO (very low certainty).

• Risk‐reducing bilateral salpingo‐oophorectomy in women with BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutations 2018 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  HR 0.14 [0.02, 0.98]
  1 study · 261 participants
  Very low