Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

1,515 questions · 1,649 findings · 81 reviews · All outcomes

No studies found 432 · 26.2%GRADE not reported 753 · 45.7%Very low 228 · 13.8%Low 153 · 9.3%Moderate 69 · 4.2%High 14 · 0.8%

Surgical anchorage (mini-screw or mid-palatal implant) vs Conventional anchorage (headgear, transpalatal/palatal arch, etc.)

Success or failure of the anchorage device · Patients of any age undergoing orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances and requiring anchorage (adolescents to adults up to 48-54 years)
1 finding from 1 review

Fluoride varnish applied before 4 years of age vs No fluoride varnish application

Fluorosis (percentage prevalence in permanent teeth) · Children exposed to topical fluoride when under 6 years old; fluorosis assessed in permanent teeth at 6 to 18 years

Fluoride varnish applied before 4 years of age may leads to higher fluorosis (percentage prevalence in permanent teeth) compared with no fluoride varnish application (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Fluoride varnish applied before 4 years of age vs Non-fluoride (placebo) varnish

Fluorosis (percentage prevalence in permanent teeth) · Children exposed to topical fluoride when under 6 years old; fluorosis assessed in permanent teeth at 6 to 18 years

Fluoride varnish applied before 4 years of age (biannual) showed no clear difference in fluorosis (percentage prevalence in permanent teeth) compared with placebo varnish (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Started toothbrushing with fluoride toothpaste before 4 years (earlier start) vs Started after 4 years (later start)

Fluorosis (percentage prevalence in permanent teeth) · Children exposed to topical fluoride when under 6 years old; fluorosis assessed in permanent teeth at 6 to 18 years

It is very uncertain whether started toothbrushing with fluoride toothpaste before 4 years… changes fluorosis (percentage prevalence in permanent teeth) compared with started after 4 years (later start) (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Dietary counselling tailored to a Stage of Change (Transtheoretical Model) to increase fruit and vegetable intake (two counselling sessions) vs usual care

Vegetable consumption behaviour: proportion in the Action Stage of Change (versus Pre-Action) · Edentulous patients aged 45 to 80 years attending dental-student teaching clinics for replacement dentures, Newcastle Dental Hospital, UK
1 finding from 1 review

Dietary counselling tailored to a Stage of Change (Transtheoretical Model) to increase fruit and vegetable intake (two counselling sessions) vs usual care

Fruit consumption behaviour: proportion in the Action Stage of Change (versus Pre-Action) · Edentulous patients aged 45 to 80 years attending dental-student teaching clinics for replacement dentures, Newcastle Dental Hospital, UK
1 finding from 1 review

Surgical anchorage (mini-screw or mid-palatal implant) vs Conventional anchorage (headgear, transpalatal/palatal arch, etc.)

Acceptability · Patients of any age undergoing orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances and requiring anchorage (adolescents to adults up to 48-54 years)
1 finding from 1 review

Surgical anchorage (mini-screw or mid-palatal implant) vs Conventional anchorage (headgear, transpalatal/palatal arch, etc.)

Adverse events · Patients of any age undergoing orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances and requiring anchorage (adolescents to adults up to 48-54 years)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Surgical anchorage (mini-screw or mid-palatal implant) vs Conventional anchorage (headgear, transpalatal/palatal arch, etc.)

Mesiodistal movement of the upper first permanent molar · Patients of any age undergoing orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances and requiring anchorage (adolescents to adults up to 48-54 years)

Surgical anchorage (mini-screw or mid-palatal implant) probably leads to lower mesiodistal movement of the upper first permanent molar compared with conventional anchorage (headgear, transpalatal/palatal arch, etc.) (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Surgical anchorage (mini-screw or mid-palatal implant) vs Conventional anchorage (headgear, transpalatal/palatal arch, etc.)

Residual overjet at the end of treatment · Patients of any age undergoing orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances and requiring anchorage (adolescents to adults up to 48-54 years)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Surgical anchorage (mini-screw or mid-palatal implant) vs Conventional anchorage (headgear, transpalatal/palatal arch, etc.)

Patient discomfort · Patients of any age undergoing orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances and requiring anchorage (adolescents to adults up to 48-54 years)
1 finding from 1 review

Surgical anchorage (mini-screw or mid-palatal implant) vs Conventional anchorage (headgear, transpalatal/palatal arch, etc.)

Duration of overall treatment · Patients of any age undergoing orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances and requiring anchorage (adolescents to adults up to 48-54 years)

Surgical anchorage (mini-screw or mid-palatal implant) showed no clear difference in duration of overall treatment compared with conventional anchorage (headgear, transpalatal/palatal arch, etc.) (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Surgical anchorage (mini-screw or mid-palatal implant) vs Conventional anchorage (headgear, transpalatal/palatal arch, etc.)

Duration of space closure · Patients of any age undergoing orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances and requiring anchorage (adolescents to adults up to 48-54 years)

Surgical anchorage (mini-screw or mid-palatal implant) showed no clear difference in duration of space closure compared with conventional anchorage (headgear, transpalatal/palatal arch, etc.); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Surgical anchorage (mini-screw or mid-palatal implant) vs Conventional anchorage (headgear, transpalatal/palatal arch, etc.)

Number of visits · Patients of any age undergoing orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances and requiring anchorage (adolescents to adults up to 48-54 years)

Surgical anchorage (mini-screw or mid-palatal implant) led to higher number of visits compared with conventional anchorage (headgear, transpalatal/palatal arch, etc.); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Surgical anchorage (mini-screw or mid-palatal implant) vs Conventional anchorage (headgear, transpalatal/palatal arch, etc.)

Patient perception: pain · Patients of any age undergoing orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances and requiring anchorage (adolescents to adults up to 48-54 years)
1 finding from 1 review

Surgical anchorage (mini-screw or mid-palatal implant) vs Conventional anchorage (headgear, transpalatal/palatal arch, etc.)

Economic factors · Patients of any age undergoing orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances and requiring anchorage (adolescents to adults up to 48-54 years)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Hypnosis combined with a sedative agent vs Sedation alone (sedative agent only)

Outcome not reported · Children and adolescents up to 16 years of age undergoing dental treatment

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review
  • No randomised or quasi-randomised trials comparing hypnosis combined with sedation versus sedation alone met the inclusion criteria; this planned comparison had no eligible studies.
    0 studies
    No studies found

Topical corticosteroids vs Another topical agent or placebo

Adverse effects of long‐term use of available topical agents · HIV‐infected adults (> 13 years of age, per CDC) with one or more painful intraoral aphthous ulcers

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review
  • No studies were included in this review. A total of 233 abstracts were retrieved; 25 were selected as potentially eligible but all were excluded (10 reported systemic rather than topical treatment; 3 non‐RCTs; 6…
    0 studies
    No studies found

Topical thalidomide vs Another topical agent or placebo

Adverse effects of long‐term use of available topical agents · HIV‐infected adults (> 13 years of age, per CDC) with one or more painful intraoral aphthous ulcers

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review
  • No studies were included in this review. A total of 233 abstracts were retrieved; 25 were selected as potentially eligible but all were excluded (10 reported systemic rather than topical treatment; 3 non‐RCTs; 6…
    0 studies
    No studies found

Antiseptic mouthwash (e.g. chlorhexidine) vs Another topical agent or placebo

Adverse effects of long‐term use of available topical agents · HIV‐infected adults (> 13 years of age, per CDC) with one or more painful intraoral aphthous ulcers

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review
  • No studies were included in this review. A total of 233 abstracts were retrieved; 25 were selected as potentially eligible but all were excluded (10 reported systemic rather than topical treatment; 3 non‐RCTs; 6…
    0 studies
    No studies found