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%

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

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

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

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

Incidence of eruption of the PDC into the mouth · Young people aged 9 to 14 years diagnosed with one or both palatally displaced permanent maxillary canines (PDC)

It is very uncertain whether extraction of the primary (baby) canine (single primary tooth… changes incidence of eruption of the PDC into the mouth compared with no extraction (non-intervention control) (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

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

Patient-reported outcomes (pain, discomfort and analgesic use) · Young people aged 9 to 14 years diagnosed with one or both palatally displaced permanent maxillary canines (PDC)
1 finding from 1 review

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

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

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

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)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review