Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

397 questions · 406 findings · 36 reviews · All outcomes

No studies found 134 · 33%GRADE not reported 184 · 45.3%Very low 59 · 14.5%Low 19 · 4.7%Moderate 10 · 2.5%High 0 · 0%

Vertical distraction osteogenesis vs Autogenous inlay bone graft (iliac crest)

Complications · Patients with vertically deficient posterior/anterior mandibular ridges needing implants

Vertical distraction osteogenesis showed no clear difference in complications compared with autogenous inlay bone graft (iliac crest); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Vertical distraction osteogenesis vs Autogenous onlay bone graft (mandibular ramus)

Vertical bone gain · Patients with vertically deficient posterior/anterior mandibular ridges needing implants

Vertical distraction osteogenesis showed no clear difference in vertical bone gain compared with autogenous onlay bone graft (mandibular ramus); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Vertical distraction osteogenesis vs Autogenous onlay bone graft (mandibular ramus)

Complication at augmentation + donor site · Patients with vertically deficient posterior/anterior mandibular ridges needing implants

Vertical distraction osteogenesis showed no clear difference in complication at augmented + donor site compared with autogenous onlay bone graft (mandibular ramus); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Vertical distraction osteogenesis vs Vertical GBR with non-resorbable barriers + particulate autogenous bone

Complication at augmentation + donor site · Patients with vertically deficient posterior/anterior mandibular ridges needing implants

Vertical distraction osteogenesis showed no clear difference in complication at augmentation + donor site compared with vertical GBR with non-resorbable barriers + particulate autogenous…; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Counter-stimulation or distraction vs Conventional treatment

Completion of dental treatment · Children and adolescents having dental treatment under local anaesthetic without general anaesthesia

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Counter-stimulation or distraction vs Conventional treatment

Successful LA/painless treatment · Children and adolescents having dental treatment under local anaesthetic without general anaesthesia

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Counter-stimulation or distraction vs Conventional treatment

Acceptance of LA · Children and adolescents having dental treatment under local anaesthetic without general anaesthesia

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Counter-stimulation or distraction vs Conventional treatment

Patient satisfaction: measured by questionnaires · Children and adolescents having dental treatment under local anaesthetic without general anaesthesia

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Counter-stimulation or distraction vs Conventional treatment

Adverse effects · Children and adolescents having dental treatment under local anaesthetic without general anaesthesia

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Counter-stimulation or distraction vs Conventional treatment

Adverse effects: pain on injection (solution deposition), Heft-Parker VAS 0-170 mm · Children and adolescents having dental treatment under local anaesthetic without general anaesthesia

Counter-stimulation or distraction led to lower pain on injection (Wong-Baker Faces / TPPPS / FPS-R, after LA) compared with conventional treatment; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Counter-stimulation or distraction vs Conventional treatment

Intraoperative pain · Children and adolescents having dental treatment under local anaesthetic without general anaesthesia

It is very uncertain whether counter-stimulation or distraction changes self- or observational assessment of intraoperative… compared with conventional treatment (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Extraction of lower deciduous canines vs No active treatment (control)

Lower incisor inclination (lingual tipping and retrusion) · Children or adolescents (aged 16 years old or under) receiving orthodontic treatment to prevent or correct crowded teeth

Extraction of lower deciduous canines showed no clear difference in lower incisors to mandible (inclination, degrees) at 1 year compared with no active treatment (control); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Extraction of lower deciduous canines vs No active treatment (control)

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

It is very uncertain whether extraction of lower deciduous canines changes amount of crowding (lower incisor crowding, change) at 1-2 years compared with no active treatment (control) (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Extraction of lower deciduous canines vs No active treatment (control)

Size of the lower jaw (arch length, change) · Children or adolescents (aged 16 years old or under) receiving orthodontic treatment to prevent or correct crowded teeth

Extraction of lower deciduous canines led to lower size of the lower jaw (arch length, change) at 1 year compared with no active treatment (control); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Extraction of third molars (wisdom teeth) vs No active treatment (control)

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

It is very uncertain whether extraction of third molars (wisdom teeth) changes amount of crowding (Little's Irregularity Index, change) at 5 years compared with no active treatment (control) (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Extraction of third molars (wisdom teeth) vs No active treatment (control)

Size of the lower jaw (arch length, change) · Children or adolescents (aged 16 years old or under) receiving orthodontic treatment to prevent or correct crowded teeth

Extraction of third molars (wisdom teeth) led to higher size of the lower jaw (arch length, change) compared with no active treatment (control); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Bone-anchored intermaxillary traction (BAIMT) vs Removable mandibular retractor (RMR)

Overjet · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)

Bone-anchored intermaxillary traction (BAIMT) led to higher overjet compared with removable mandibular retractor (RMR); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Bone-anchored intermaxillary traction (BAIMT) vs Removable mandibular retractor (RMR)

Adverse effects / patient-reported (pain, self-confidence) · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)
1 finding from 1 review

Bone-anchored intermaxillary traction (BAIMT) vs Removable mandibular retractor (RMR)

ANB · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)

Bone-anchored intermaxillary traction (BAIMT) led to higher ANB compared with removable mandibular retractor (RMR); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Counter-stimulation and distraction (combined) vs Conventional treatment

Acceptance of LA · Children and adolescents having dental treatment under local anaesthetic without general anaesthesia

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review