Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

828 questions · 1,007 findings · 63 reviews · Oral Health

No studies found 110 · 10.9%GRADE not reported 709 · 70.4%Very low 84 · 8.3%Low 70 · 7%Moderate 33 · 3.3%High 1 · 0.1%

Cervical pull headgear vs Minor interceptive procedures (control)

Amount of crowding (lower incisor crowding) at 10 weeks · Children or adolescents (aged 16 years old or under) receiving orthodontic treatment to prevent or correct crowded teeth

It is very uncertain whether cervical pull headgear changes amount of crowding (lower incisor crowding) at 2 years compared with minor interceptive procedures (control) (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Cervical pull headgear vs Minor interceptive procedures (control)

Size of the jaws (maxillary and mandibular arch length) · Children or adolescents (aged 16 years old or under) receiving orthodontic treatment to prevent or correct crowded teeth

Cervical pull headgear led to higher size of the jaws (maxillary and mandibular arch length) compared with minor interceptive procedures (control); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Cervical pull headgear vs Minor interceptive procedures (control)

Position of the incisors (upper incisor inclination) · Children or adolescents (aged 16 years old or under) receiving orthodontic treatment to prevent or correct crowded teeth

Cervical pull headgear led to higher upper incisors to maxilla at 2 years compared with minor interceptive procedures (control); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Cervical pull headgear vs Minor interceptive procedures (control)

Lower incisors to mandible (relationship of lower front teeth to the mandible) · Children or adolescents (aged 16 years old or under) receiving orthodontic treatment to prevent or correct crowded teeth

Cervical pull headgear showed no clear difference in lower incisors to mandible at 2 years compared with minor interceptive procedures (control); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Betamethasone oral mini-pulse therapy vs Topical triamcinolone acetonide paste

Side effects · People with erosive oral lichen planus
1 finding from 1 review
  • Table 3 (Side-effects). Malhotra 2008: betamethasone oral mini-pulse - transient oedema over the face (7), oedema over hands and feet (4), epigastric discomfort (7), weakness/fatigue (5), loose stools (1), headache…
    1 study · 22 participants
    GRADE not reported

Betamethasone oral mini-pulse therapy vs Topical triamcinolone acetonide paste

Investigator‐ or physician‐rated global assessment of disease severity · People with erosive oral lichen planus

Betamethasone oral mini-pulse therapy led to higher physician Global Assessment (clinical severity, 0-12 score) compared with topical triamcinolone acetonide 0.1% paste; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Low level of schooling (>33.60% of the population) vs Not applicable

Dental caries · Adult participants in 25 meta-regression studies

The unadjusted meta-regression coefficient for low schooling was -2.301079.

2 findings from 1 review

Low socioeconomic status (>22.4% of the population) vs Not applicable

Dental caries · Adult participants in 25 meta-regression studies

The unadjusted meta-regression coefficient for low socioeconomic status was 10.49365.

2 findings from 1 review

Populations with a lower proportion of university-educated people (<33.78% with university level) vs Not applicable

Dental caries · Adult participants in 25 meta-regression studies

The Model 1 adjusted meta-regression coefficient for lower university education was -4.132903.

2 findings from 1 review

Extraction of the primary maxillary canine plus cervical pull headgear vs no intervention

Prevalence of eruption/non-eruption of the palatally displaced permanent canine (successful eruption) · Children with palatally displaced maxillary canines (at least 80% aged 10 to 13 years); trials with craniofacial syndromes or anomalies…
1 finding from 1 review

Extraction of the primary maxillary canine plus cervical pull headgear vs Extraction of the primary maxillary canine alone

Prevalence of eruption/non-eruption of the palatally displaced permanent canine (successful eruption) · Children with palatally displaced maxillary canines (at least 80% aged 10 to 13 years); trials with craniofacial syndromes or anomalies…
1 finding from 1 review

Removable appliance with palatal crib associated with high-pull chincup vs no treatment

Mandibular ramus growth · Children and adolescents (over 80% aged 16 years or younger at treatment start) with anterior open bite (lack of vertical overlap or…
1 finding from 1 review
  • Orthodontic and orthopaedic treatment for anterior open bite in children 2014 · Cochrane All outcomes
    End of treatment (12 months)
    Cephalometric data (SNA, Co-A, SNB, Ar-Go, Ar.GoMe, Co-Gn, ANB) were reported to be not significantly different between groups; effects were dento-alveolar rather than skeletal. No pooled estimate (Almeida 2005).
    1 study
    GRADE not reported

Removable appliance with palatal crib associated with high-pull chincup vs no treatment

Alteration of hyperdivergent growth pattern · Children and adolescents (over 80% aged 16 years or younger at treatment start) with anterior open bite (lack of vertical overlap or…
1 finding from 1 review
  • Orthodontic and orthopaedic treatment for anterior open bite in children 2014 · Cochrane All outcomes
    End of treatment (12 months)
    The angles (SN.GoGN, SN.PP, NS.Gn) and linear measures (AFA, AFP, AFAI) did not demonstrate significant alterations between groups; interventions did not produce significant changes in the skeletal maxillary or…
    1 study
    GRADE not reported

Removable appliance with palatal crib associated with high-pull chincup vs no treatment

Expansion of the upper and lower jaw · Children and adolescents (over 80% aged 16 years or younger at treatment start) with anterior open bite (lack of vertical overlap or…
1 finding from 1 review
  • Orthodontic and orthopaedic treatment for anterior open bite in children 2014 · Cochrane All outcomes
    End of treatment (12 months)
    Listed among the outcome measures evaluated by Almeida 2005. No separate width/expansion estimate is reported in the text; the review concluded the interventions produced no significant change in the skeletal maxillary…
    1 study
    GRADE not reported

Removable appliance with palatal crib associated with high-pull chincup vs no treatment

Position of the incisors (upper incisor inclination) · Children and adolescents (over 80% aged 16 years or younger at treatment start) with anterior open bite (lack of vertical overlap or…
1 finding from 1 review
  • Orthodontic and orthopaedic treatment for anterior open bite in children 2014 · Cochrane All outcomes
    End of treatment (12 months)
    The author reported that data (1.NA, 1-NA, 1-PP, 1.NB, 1-NB, 1-GoMe) showed a statistically significant difference. There was palatal inclination of the upper incisors in the intervention group that contributed to…
    1 study
    GRADE not reported

Removable appliance with palatal crib associated with high-pull chincup vs no treatment

Failure to correct the anterior open bite (open bite not closed) · Children and adolescents (over 80% aged 16 years or younger at treatment start) with anterior open bite (lack of vertical overlap or…

Removable appliance with palatal crib associated with high-pull… led to lower failure to correct the anterior open bite (open bite not closed) compared with no treatment; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review