Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

1,954 questions · 2,335 findings · 149 reviews · Oral Health

No studies found 436 · 18.7%GRADE not reported 1,370 · 58.7%Very low 254 · 10.9%Low 173 · 7.4%Moderate 80 · 3.4%High 22 · 0.9%

3-dimensional (3D) miniplates vs Standard (Champy) plates

Post-operative adverse events and complications · Adults (16 to 68 years) with mandibular fractures excluding condylar involvement
1 finding from 1 review
  • Jain 2010 (3D group): segmental mobility (two), proximity to mental nerve or roots (two), radiologically unsatisfactory reduction (one) and unsatisfactory fixation (four) vs one (standard); only fixation differed…
    2 studies
    GRADE not reported

Locking plate vs 2 mm non-locking titanium plates

Drop-out rate due to protocol deviation · Adults (16 to 68 years) with mandibular fractures excluding condylar involvement
1 finding from 1 review
  • Early premature removal of IMF (from hours up to 2 weeks) was reported in 13 of the 90 participants analysed (Collins 2004); participants released their own IMF or reported that "the wires fell off".
    1 study · 90 participants
    GRADE not reported

2 mm titanium plates vs 2.5 mm bioresorbable plates

Post-operative pain (residual pain, any severity) · Adults (16 to 68 years) with mandibular fractures excluding condylar involvement

2 mm titanium plates showed no clear difference in post-operative pain (residual pain, any severity) compared with 2.5 mm bioresorbable plates; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Locking plate vs 2 mm non-locking titanium plates

Restoration of function (functional occlusion; bite force as surrogate) · Adults (16 to 68 years) with mandibular fractures excluding condylar involvement
1 finding from 1 review
  • Functional occlusion was achieved in all participants in both intervention groups (Agarwal 2011); the measurement of this outcome was not clearly reported. Bite force was reported as a surrogate/proxy outcome.
    1 study
    GRADE not reported

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

Human Development Index (HDI) vs Not applicable

Dental caries · Adult participants in 25 meta-regression studies

The Model 1 adjusted meta-regression coefficient for quantitative HDI was -42.94101.

3 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

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