Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

238 questions · 268 findings · 39 reviews · Oral Health · All outcomes

No studies found 55 · 20.5%GRADE not reported 154 · 57.5%Very low 23 · 8.6%Low 23 · 8.6%Moderate 13 · 4.9%High 0 · 0%

ITI SLActive titanium grade 4 implants vs ITI SLActive titanium-13zirconium (Roxolid) implants

Implant failure · Adults with missing teeth who received osseointegrated root-formed oral implants, functionally loaded and followed for at least 1 year

ITI SLActive titanium grade 4 implants showed no clear difference in implant failure compared with ITI SLActive titanium-13zirconium (Roxolid) implants; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

NobelActive external connection implants vs NobelActive internal connection implants

Marginal bone level change · Adults with missing teeth who received osseointegrated root-formed oral implants, functionally loaded and followed for at least 1 year

NobelActive external connection implants showed no clear difference in marginal bone level change compared with nobelActive internal connection implants; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

NobelActive external connection implants vs NobelActive internal connection implants

Implant failure · Adults with missing teeth who received osseointegrated root-formed oral implants, functionally loaded and followed for at least 1 year

NobelActive external connection implants showed no clear difference in implant failure compared with nobelActive internal connection implants; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

One active intervention (surgical, medical, or psychological) vs A different active intervention (direct head-to-head comparison)

Outcome not reported · Patients of any age in any setting requiring intervention for iatrogenic injury to the inferior alveolar or lingual nerve

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

ACTIVA bioactive restorative material vs Glass ionomer cement (GIC)

Secondary caries · Patients requiring dental restoration; permanent teeth

Over 1 year in permanent teeth, the effect of ACTIVA versus GIC on secondary caries is very uncertain (RR 22.80, 95% CI 0.89-584.17; very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Higher JIA disease activity/severity (e.g., high JADAS/activity scores, polyarticular RF-negative subtype, active disease, anti-TNFalpha or cyclosporine medication) vs Lower JIA disease activity / inactive or milder JIA

Prevalence and severity of oral and TMJ diseases/conditions (periodontal status and dental caries) · Children and adolescents with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA)

Some studies suggested greater JIA disease activity/severity (and certain medications) was associated with worse periodontal and caries outcomes, but small samples meant no solid conclusion could be drawn (ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Bioactive restorative materials (RMGIC and compomer combined) vs Resin composite restoration

Secondary caries · Patients requiring dental restoration; deciduous (primary) teeth

In deciduous teeth at 1 year, pooled bioactive materials (RMGIC and compomer) showed no significant difference from resin composite in secondary caries (RR 0.54, 95% CI 0.07-4.10; ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Active self-ligating brackets vs Passive self-ligating brackets

Time to alignment · Children or adolescents (aged 16 years old or under) receiving orthodontic treatment to prevent or correct crowded teeth

Active self-ligating brackets showed no clear difference in time to alignment (days) compared with passive self-ligating brackets; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Active self-ligating brackets vs Passive self-ligating brackets

Amount of crowding (upper anterior crowding) · Children or adolescents (aged 16 years old or under) receiving orthodontic treatment to prevent or correct crowded teeth
1 finding from 1 review
  • Orthodontic treatment for crowded teeth in children 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes
    baseline
    Only baseline upper anterior crowding reported (Pandis 2010a, n=70); evidence of baseline imbalance between groups (P=0.04); no post-treatment between-group crowding estimate reported.
    1 study
    GRADE not reported

NobelActive external connection implants vs NobelReplace implants

Implant failure · Adults with missing teeth who received osseointegrated root-formed oral implants, functionally loaded and followed for at least 1 year

NobelActive external connection implants showed no clear difference in implant failure compared with nobelReplace implants; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

NobelActive internal connection implants vs NobelReplace implants

Marginal bone level change · Adults with missing teeth who received osseointegrated root-formed oral implants, functionally loaded and followed for at least 1 year

NobelActive internal connection implants showed no clear difference in marginal bone level change compared with nobelReplace implants; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

NobelActive external connection implants vs NobelReplace implants

Marginal bone level change · Adults with missing teeth who received osseointegrated root-formed oral implants, functionally loaded and followed for at least 1 year

NobelActive external connection implants showed no clear difference in marginal bone level change compared with nobelReplace implants; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

NobelActive internal connection implants vs Nobel Speedy Groovy external connection implants

Marginal bone level change · Adults with missing teeth who received osseointegrated root-formed oral implants, functionally loaded and followed for at least 1 year

NobelActive internal connection implants led to lower marginal bone level change compared with nobel Speedy Groovy external connection implants; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

NobelActive internal connection implants vs NobelReplace implants

Implant failure · Adults with missing teeth who received osseointegrated root-formed oral implants, functionally loaded and followed for at least 1 year

NobelActive internal connection implants showed no clear difference in implant failure compared with nobelReplace implants; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Placebo (sham irradiation, laser inactive) vs Control (no laser device used)

Maximum pain (verbal rating scale, VRS) · People requiring retreatment of periapical lesions (failed root canal therapy)

Placebo (sham irradiation, laser inactive) led to lower maximum pain (verbal rating scale, VRS) compared with control (no laser device used); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Dental caries assessment (WHO/clinical diagnostic criteria; caries = DMFT>0) vs Caries-free status

CA VI concentration · Individuals assessed for dental caries (mainly children aged 2-9 years; one study in adults aged 18-24 years)

Salivary CA VI concentration is significantly lower in individuals with dental caries than in caries-free individuals (SMD -0.672, 95% CI -1.011 to -0.332; not GRADE-rated).

1 finding from 1 review

Dental caries assessment (WHO/clinical diagnostic criteria; caries = DMFT>0) vs Caries-free status

CA VI activity · Children (age about 2-9 years) across the 7 meta-analyzed activity samples; excludes Kivela 1999 adults (18-24 years), qualitative only…

Salivary/biofilm CA VI activity is significantly higher in individuals with dental caries than in caries-free individuals (SMD 0.894, 95% CI 0.386 to 1.392; not GRADE-rated).

1 finding from 1 review