Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

2,890 questions · 3,917 findings · 272 reviews · All outcomes

No studies found 429 · 11%GRADE not reported 2,657 · 67.8%Very low 512 · 13.1%Low 219 · 5.6%Moderate 80 · 2%High 20 · 0.5%

Activator functional appliance vs Prefabricated functional myobrace appliance (PFA)

Final overjet · Adolescents (age 12 to 16 years) receiving orthodontic treatment to correct prominent upper front teeth (Class II malocclusion)

Activator functional appliance showed no clear difference in final overjet compared with prefabricated functional myobrace appliance (PFA); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Early extraction of a compromised first permanent molar vs Teeth in the same arch/patient with the first permanent molar present

Caries and/or fillings in adjacent teeth · Children aged 5 to 15 years with a compromised first permanent molar

One study found fewer decayed or filled proximal surfaces but more decayed or filled occlusal surfaces in arches with an extracted first permanent molar; ungraded.

1 finding from 1 review

Metal-free cantilevered FDPs (feldspathic-veneered zirconia) vs Metal-ceramic cantilevered FDPs

Plaque · Adults (18 years or older) needing replacement of one premolar or incisor with a cantilevered fixed dental prosthesis

Metal-free cantilevered FDPs (feldspathic-veneered zirconia) showed no clear difference in plaque index (PI) compared with metal-ceramic cantilevered FDPs; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Metal-free single crowns (full-contour zirconia) vs Cast gold (conventional metal) single crowns

Crown failure · Adults (18 years or older) needing a single crown in the molar or premolar region

It is very uncertain whether metal-free single crowns (full-contour zirconia) changes crown failure compared with cast gold (conventional metal) single crowns (very low certainty).

2 findings from 1 review

Metal-free cantilevered FDPs (feldspathic-veneered zirconia) vs Metal-ceramic cantilevered FDPs

Cantilevered bridge failure · Adults (18 years or older) needing replacement of one premolar or incisor with a cantilevered fixed dental prosthesis
1 finding from 1 review

Metal-free cantilevered FDPs (feldspathic-veneered zirconia) vs Metal-ceramic cantilevered FDPs

Gingival index (GI) · Adults (18 years or older) needing replacement of one premolar or incisor with a cantilevered fixed dental prosthesis

Metal-free cantilevered FDPs (feldspathic-veneered zirconia) showed no clear difference in gingival index (GI) compared with metal-ceramic cantilevered FDPs; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Metal-free cantilevered FDPs (feldspathic-veneered zirconia) vs Metal-ceramic cantilevered FDPs

Cantilevered bridge complications · Adults (18 years or older) needing replacement of one premolar or incisor with a cantilevered fixed dental prosthesis

It is very uncertain whether metal-free cantilevered FDPs (feldspathic-veneered zirconia) changes cantilevered bridge complications compared with metal-ceramic cantilevered FDPs (very low certainty).

2 findings from 1 review

Metal-free single crowns (full-contour zirconia) vs Cast gold (conventional metal) single crowns

Crown complications · Adults (18 years or older) needing a single crown in the molar or premolar region

It is very uncertain whether metal-free single crowns (full-contour zirconia) changes crown complications compared with cast gold (conventional metal) single crowns (very low certainty).

2 findings from 1 review

Metal-free single crowns (full-contour zirconia) vs Cast gold (conventional metal) single crowns

Periodontal/peri-implant status and occlusal wear (secondary outcomes) · Adults (18 years or older) needing a single crown in the molar or premolar region

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Metal-free cantilevered FDPs (feldspathic-veneered zirconia) vs Metal-ceramic cantilevered FDPs

Aesthetics evaluated by the patient · Adults (18 years or older) needing replacement of one premolar or incisor with a cantilevered fixed dental prosthesis

It is very uncertain whether metal-free cantilevered FDPs (feldspathic-veneered zirconia) changes aesthetic evaluation (patient VAS) compared with metal-ceramic cantilevered FDPs (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Repositioning of ankylosed teeth after osteotomy followed or not by distraction osteogenesis, or after luxation vs Conventional orthodontic treatment or follow-up with no specific treatment for ankylosis

Outcome not reported · Any patient with ankylosis and displacement of permanent front teeth diagnosed by clinical and radiographic assessment, with or without…

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Transplantation of other teeth after extraction of the ankylosed teeth vs Conventional orthodontic treatment or follow-up with no specific treatment for ankylosis

Outcome not reported · Any patient with ankylosis and displacement of permanent front teeth diagnosed by clinical and radiographic assessment, with or without…

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Implant-supported crowns after extraction or decoronation of the ankylosed teeth vs Conventional orthodontic treatment or follow-up with no specific treatment for ankylosis

Outcome not reported · Any patient with ankylosis and displacement of permanent front teeth diagnosed by clinical and radiographic assessment, with or without…

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Higher maternal circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) concentration vs Lower maternal circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) concentration

Small‐for‐gestational age · pregnant women and their infants..

Meta-analysis of observational studies (higher vs lower maternal 25(OH)D) for Small for gestational age: OR 0.54 (95% CI 0.44 to 0.67), statistically significant. Umbrella review outcome-level evidence grade: Suggestive.

1 finding from 1 review

Higher maternal circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) concentration vs Lower maternal circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) concentration

Head circumference (mm) · pregnant women and their infants..

Meta-analysis of observational studies (higher vs lower maternal 25(OH)D) for Head circumference: WMD 0.05 (95% CI -0.24 to 0.34), not statistically significant. Umbrella review outcome-level evidence grade: Suggestive.

1 finding from 1 review

Vitamin D vs placebo or control

Gestational age at birth (weeks) · pregnant women

Meta-analysis of randomised trials of vitamin D supplementation for Mean gestational age at delivery: WMD 0.17 (95% CI -0.16 to 0.51), not statistically significant. Umbrella review outcome-level evidence grade: No conclusion.

1 finding from 1 review

Higher maternal circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) concentration vs Lower maternal circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) concentration

Birth length · pregnant women and their infants..

Meta-analysis of observational studies (higher vs lower maternal 25(OH)D) for Birth length: WMD 0.19 (95% CI -0.26 to 0.65), not statistically significant. Umbrella review outcome-level evidence grade: Substantial effect unlikely.

1 finding from 1 review

Vitamin D vs placebo or control

Small‐for‐gestational age · pregnant women

Meta-analysis of randomised trials of vitamin D supplementation for Small for gestational age: RR 0.67 (95% CI 0.40 to 1.11), not statistically significant. Umbrella review outcome-level evidence grade: Suggestive.

1 finding from 1 review