Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

37 questions · 38 findings · 7 reviews · Oral Health · All outcomes

Sort:Best matchNewest Highest certainty Download CSV

No studies found 16 · 42.1%GRADE not reported 5 · 13.2%Very low 10 · 26.3%Low 6 · 15.8%Moderate 1 · 2.6%High 0 · 0%

Any method, procedure or policy to reduce contaminated aerosols in dental clinics vs Any other method, no treatment or combination of methods

Cost of the intervention · Dental healthcare providers (dentist, dental surgery assistant, dental hygienist, dental technologist, dental laboratory staff, dental…

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions to reduce contaminated aerosols produced during dental procedures for preventing infectious diseases 2020 · Cochrane All outcomes
no estimate extracted
0 studies
No studies found

Any method, procedure or policy to reduce contaminated aerosols in dental clinics vs Any other method, no treatment or combination of methods

Acceptability and feasibility of the intervention to patients and dentists · Dental healthcare providers (dentist, dental surgery assistant, dental hygienist, dental technologist, dental laboratory staff, dental…

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions to reduce contaminated aerosols produced during dental procedures for preventing infectious diseases 2020 · Cochrane All outcomes
no estimate extracted
0 studies
No studies found

Any method, procedure or policy to reduce contaminated aerosols in dental clinics vs Any other method, no treatment or combination of methods

Reduction in volume of contaminated aerosols in the operative environment · Dental healthcare providers (dentist, dental surgery assistant, dental hygienist, dental technologist, dental laboratory staff, dental…

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions to reduce contaminated aerosols produced during dental procedures for preventing infectious diseases 2020 · Cochrane All outcomes
Reduction in volume of contaminated aerosols in the operative environment: Not reported (row present in all Summary of findings tables)
0 studies
No studies found

Any method, procedure or policy to reduce contaminated aerosols in dental clinics vs Any other method, no treatment or combination of methods

Incidence of infection of dental staff or patients · Dental healthcare providers (dentist, dental surgery assistant, dental hygienist, dental technologist, dental laboratory staff, dental…

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions to reduce contaminated aerosols produced during dental procedures for preventing infectious diseases 2020 · Cochrane All outcomes
Rate of infection of dental staff or patients: Not reported (row present in all Summary of findings tables)
0 studies
No studies found

Any topical or systemic intervention (topical/systemic steroids, ciclosporin, tacrolimus, retinoids, anti-malarials, biologics, phototherapy, surgery) vs Placebo, no treatment, another active intervention, or a different dose of the same intervention

Eating a normally varied diet · People of any age with erosive lichen planus affecting the oral, anogenital, and/or oesophageal regions

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions for erosive lichen planus affecting mucosal sites 2012 · Cochrane All outcomes
No studies reported this outcome.
0 studies
No studies found

Any topical or systemic intervention (topical/systemic steroids, ciclosporin, tacrolimus, retinoids, anti-malarials, biologics, phototherapy, surgery) vs Placebo, no treatment, another active intervention, or a different dose of the same intervention

Restoration of sexual activity · People of any age with erosive lichen planus affecting the oral, anogenital, and/or oesophageal regions

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions for erosive lichen planus affecting mucosal sites 2012 · Cochrane All outcomes
None of the included studies assessed the effectiveness of treatments of genital ELP; thus, this outcome was not reported.
0 studies
No studies found

Any topical or systemic intervention (topical/systemic steroids, ciclosporin, tacrolimus, retinoids, anti-malarials, biologics, phototherapy, surgery) vs Placebo, no treatment, another active intervention, or a different dose of the same intervention

Reduction in number of flares · People of any age with erosive lichen planus affecting the oral, anogenital, and/or oesophageal regions

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions for erosive lichen planus affecting mucosal sites 2012 · Cochrane All outcomes
No studies reported this outcome.
0 studies
No studies found

Any topical or systemic intervention (topical/systemic steroids, ciclosporin, tacrolimus, retinoids, anti-malarials, biologics, phototherapy, surgery) vs Placebo, no treatment, another active intervention, or a different dose of the same intervention

Reduction in severity of flares · People of any age with erosive lichen planus affecting the oral, anogenital, and/or oesophageal regions

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions for erosive lichen planus affecting mucosal sites 2012 · Cochrane All outcomes
No studies reported this outcome.
0 studies
No studies found

Probiotics vs placebo or control

Dental caries in children · Adolescents (12-18 years) without background systemic disease

In a subgroup analysis, probiotics reduced the number of caries in adolescents (MD -0.60, 95%CI -0.92 to -0.28; p-interaction=0.02); not GRADE-rated.

1 finding from 1 review

Efficacy of Probiotic Consumption on Oral Outcomes in Children and/or Adolescents: A Meta-Analysis. 2024 All outcomes
Healthy children and/or adolescents (<18 years) without systemic disease; RCTs from multiple countries (India, Thailand, Spain, Australia, New Zealand, Sweden, Poland, Colombia, Saudi Arabia); mostly school/community and clinic settings · Population: adolescents (vs children; p-interaction=0.02)
MD -0.60 [-0.92, -0.28]
Studies not reported
GRADE not reported

Probiotics vs placebo or control

Gingival index (GI) · Children and/or adolescents (<18 years) without background systemic disease

Probiotics probably make little to no difference to the gingival index versus control (MD 0.04, 95%CI -0.18 to 0.27; low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Efficacy of Probiotic Consumption on Oral Outcomes in Children and/or Adolescents: A Meta-Analysis. 2024 All outcomes
follow-up: mean 3.07 months · Healthy children and/or adolescents (<18 years) without systemic disease; RCTs from multiple countries (India, Thailand, Spain, Australia, New Zealand, Sweden, Poland, Colombia, Saudi Arabia); mostly school/community and clinic settings · Overall (all presentations pooled)
MD 0.04 [-0.18, 0.27]
3 studies · 144 participants
Low

Probiotics vs placebo or control

Lactobacillus count (CFU/mL) · Children and/or adolescents (<18 years) without background systemic disease

Probiotics may make little to no difference to Lactobacillus count versus control (MD -0.78 CFU/mL, 95%CI -1.65 to 0.09; very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Efficacy of Probiotic Consumption on Oral Outcomes in Children and/or Adolescents: A Meta-Analysis. 2024 All outcomes
follow-up: mean 5.2 months · Healthy children and/or adolescents (<18 years) without systemic disease; RCTs from multiple countries (India, Thailand, Spain, Australia, New Zealand, Sweden, Poland, Colombia, Saudi Arabia); mostly school/community and clinic settings · Overall (all presentations pooled)
MD -0.78 [-1.65, 0.09]
6 studies · 1143 participants
Very low

Probiotics vs placebo or control

Salivary pH · Children and/or adolescents (<18 years) without background systemic disease

Probiotics may make little to no difference to salivary pH versus control (MD -0.12 pH units, 95%CI -0.72 to 0.48; very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Efficacy of Probiotic Consumption on Oral Outcomes in Children and/or Adolescents: A Meta-Analysis. 2024 All outcomes
follow-up: mean 1.1 months · Healthy children and/or adolescents (<18 years) without systemic disease; RCTs from multiple countries (India, Thailand, Spain, Australia, New Zealand, Sweden, Poland, Colombia, Saudi Arabia); mostly school/community and clinic settings · Overall (all presentations pooled)
MD -0.12 [-0.72, 0.48]
3 studies · 137 participants
Very low

Probiotics vs placebo or control

Dental caries in children · Children and/or adolescents (<18 years) without background systemic disease

Probiotics probably make little to no difference to the number of dental caries versus control (MD -0.24 carious pieces, 95%CI -0.72 to 0.23; low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Efficacy of Probiotic Consumption on Oral Outcomes in Children and/or Adolescents: A Meta-Analysis. 2024 All outcomes
follow-up: mean 26 months · Healthy children and/or adolescents (<18 years) without systemic disease; RCTs from multiple countries (India, Thailand, Spain, Australia, New Zealand, Sweden, Poland, Colombia, Saudi Arabia); mostly school/community and clinic settings · Overall (all presentations pooled)
MD -0.24 [-0.72, 0.23]
6 studies · 1049 participants
Low

Probiotics vs placebo or control

Streptococcus mutans count · Children and/or adolescents (<18 years) without background systemic disease

Probiotics probably reduce Streptococcus mutans count versus control (MD -0.40 CFU/mL, 95%CI -0.57 to -0.24; moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Efficacy of Probiotic Consumption on Oral Outcomes in Children and/or Adolescents: A Meta-Analysis. 2024 All outcomes
follow-up: mean 4.4 months · Healthy children and/or adolescents (<18 years) without systemic disease; RCTs from multiple countries (India, Thailand, Spain, Australia, New Zealand, Sweden, Poland, Colombia, Saudi Arabia); mostly school/community and clinic settings · Overall (all presentations pooled)
MD -0.40 [-0.57, -0.24]
11 studies · 1321 participants
Moderate

Probiotics vs placebo or control

Gingival bleeding (various bleeding indices) · Children and/or adolescents (<18 years) without background systemic disease

Only one trial (Borrell 2021) reported the bleeding index, showing slightly more bleeding with probiotics (MD 0.10, 95%CI 0.02 to 0.18); not pooled or GRADE-rated.

1 finding from 1 review

Efficacy of Probiotic Consumption on Oral Outcomes in Children and/or Adolescents: A Meta-Analysis. 2024 All outcomes
1.5 months · Healthy children and/or adolescents (<18 years) without systemic disease; RCTs from multiple countries (India, Thailand, Spain, Australia, New Zealand, Sweden, Poland, Colombia, Saudi Arabia); mostly school/community and clinic settings · Single study (Borrell 2021); not pooled
MD 0.10 [0.02, 0.18]
1 study · 27 participants
GRADE not reported

Probiotics vs placebo or control

Plaque index (PI) / oral hygiene · Children and/or adolescents (<18 years) without background systemic disease

Probiotics may make little to no difference to the bacterial plaque index versus control (MD 0.21, 95%CI -0.55 to 0.96; very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Efficacy of Probiotic Consumption on Oral Outcomes in Children and/or Adolescents: A Meta-Analysis. 2024 All outcomes
follow-up: mean 2.3 months · Healthy children and/or adolescents (<18 years) without systemic disease; RCTs from multiple countries (India, Thailand, Spain, Australia, New Zealand, Sweden, Poland, Colombia, Saudi Arabia); mostly school/community and clinic settings · Overall (all presentations pooled)
MD 0.21 [-0.55, 0.96]
4 studies · 171 participants
Very low

Probiotics vs placebo or control

Streptococcus viridans count (CFU/mL) · Children and/or adolescents (<18 years) without background systemic disease

Only one trial (Mishra 2014) reported S. viridans count, showing a higher count with probiotics (MD 0.40 CFU/mL, 95%CI 0.33 to 0.47); not pooled or GRADE-rated.

1 finding from 1 review

Efficacy of Probiotic Consumption on Oral Outcomes in Children and/or Adolescents: A Meta-Analysis. 2024 All outcomes
6 months · Healthy children and/or adolescents (<18 years) without systemic disease; RCTs from multiple countries (India, Thailand, Spain, Australia, New Zealand, Sweden, Poland, Colombia, Saudi Arabia); mostly school/community and clinic settings · Single study (Mishra 2014); not pooled
MD 0.40 [0.33, 0.47]
1 study · 60 participants
GRADE not reported

Medical interventions (systemic: analgesics, antidepressants, antiepileptics, steroids; topical: analgesics, anaesthetics) vs Another intervention, or no intervention

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

Interventions for iatrogenic inferior alveolar and lingual nerve injury 2014 · Cochrane All outcomes
Results: 'No studies evaluated medical ... interventions.' No eligible RCT of medical interventions (analgesics, antidepressants, antiepileptics, steroids, topical anaesthetics).
0 studies
No studies found

Fixed-appliance orthodontic treatment incorporating surgically assisted orthodontics (adjunctive surgical procedure: corticotomy, micro-osteoperforation or interseptal bone reduction) to increase the rate of tooth movement vs Conventional orthodontic appliance treatment

Duration of orthodontic treatment, number of visits during active treatment (scheduled and unscheduled) and duration of visits · Individuals of any age receiving orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances (braces) (people requiring orthodontic tooth movement);…

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Surgical adjunctive procedures for accelerating orthodontic treatment 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes
SoF row: Illustrative comparative risks '‐' / '‐'; no relative effect; Comments: 'Not reported'. Results: 'Our prespecified primary outcome (the duration of orthodontic treatment, number of visits during active…
0 studies
No studies found

Fixed-appliance orthodontic treatment incorporating surgically assisted orthodontics (adjunctive surgical procedure: corticotomy, micro-osteoperforation or interseptal bone reduction) to increase the rate of tooth movement vs Conventional orthodontic appliance treatment

Patient satisfaction with treatment Measured by a validated scale · Individuals of any age receiving orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances (braces) (people requiring orthodontic tooth movement);…

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Surgical adjunctive procedures for accelerating orthodontic treatment 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes
Results: 'Our prespecified secondary outcomes of patient satisfaction, improvement in occlusion, and prolonged stability of treatment were not measured in the trials.'
0 studies
No studies found