Restoration failure (permanent, mature dentition; root surfaces) · Older adults with root caries in permanent (mature) teeth (mean age 75 years)
It is very uncertain whether ART using resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RM-GIC) changes restoration failure (permanent, mature dentition; root surfaces) compared with conventional treatment using RM-GIC (very low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Restoration failure (permanent dentition) · People with dental caries in primary teeth (mainly children)
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
Restoration failure (permanent, immature teeth) · Children and adolescents with dental caries (primary teeth and permanent immature teeth)
ART using glass ionomer cement (GIC) led to higher restoration failure (permanent, immature teeth) compared with conventional treatment using amalgam; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Pain (permanent, immature teeth) · Children and adolescents with dental caries (primary teeth and permanent immature teeth)
ART using glass ionomer cement (GIC) led to lower pain (permanent, immature teeth) compared with conventional treatment using amalgam; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
OR 0.41 [0.35, 0.47]
1 study
GRADE not reported
Participant experience · Older adults with root caries in permanent (mature) teeth (mean age 75 years)
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
Costs (direct and indirect) · Older adults with root caries in permanent (mature) teeth (mean age 75 years)
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
Secondary caries · Older adults with root caries in permanent (mature) teeth (mean age 75 years)
1 finding from 1 review
Pain · Older adults with root caries in permanent (mature) teeth (mean age 75 years)
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
Pain: Not measured.
0 studies
No studies found
Restoration failure (primary dentition) · Older adults with root caries in permanent (mature) teeth (mean age 75 years)
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
Adverse events · Older adults with root caries in permanent (mature) teeth (mean age 75 years)
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
A permanent restorative material or technique (e.g. amalgam; glass ionomer (type I-IV); composite resin (macrofilled, microfilled, hybrid, nanofilled); resin-modified glass ionomer (compomer, giomer); cement/cermet; stainless steel or nickel-chrome crown; pre-fabricated resin/porcelain veneer facing; microabrasion) vs A different permanent restorative material or technique
Outcome not reported · Children and adolescents under 18 years with amelogenesis imperfecta requiring restorative care of anterior teeth, irrespective of…
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
A permanent restorative material or technique (e.g. amalgam; glass ionomer (type I-IV); composite resin (macrofilled, microfilled, hybrid, nanofilled); resin-modified glass ionomer (compomer, giomer); cement/cermet; stainless steel or nickel-chrome crown; pre-fabricated resin/porcelain veneer facing; microabrasion) vs A different permanent restorative material or technique
Outcome not reported · Children and adolescents under 18 years with amelogenesis imperfecta requiring restorative care of posterior teeth, irrespective of…
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
Permanent pacemaker implantation · adults with severe aortic stenosis who are at a low surgical risk.
Transcatheter aortic valve implantation probably leads to higher permanent pacemaker implantation compared with surgical aortic valve replacement (moderate certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Restoration failure (primary dentition) · Children and adolescents with dental caries (primary teeth and permanent immature teeth)
ART using glass ionomer cement (GIC) showed no clear difference in restoration failure (primary teeth) compared with conventional treatment using amalgam; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Participant experience (co-operation during procedure) · Children and adolescents with dental caries (primary teeth and permanent immature teeth)
1 finding from 1 review
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
Mesiodistal movement of the upper first permanent molar · Patients undergoing orthodontic treatment requiring surgical (mini-screw implant) anchorage
Dual mini-screw implant led to higher mesiodistal movement of the upper first permanent molar compared with single mini-screw implant; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Effect of severity of PDC displacement towards the midline on the proportion of successful eruptions · Young people aged 9 to 14 years diagnosed with one or both palatally displaced permanent maxillary canines (PDC)
1 finding from 1 review
Effect of severity of PDC displacement towards the midline on the proportion of successful eruptions · Young people aged 9 to 14 years diagnosed with one or both palatally displaced permanent maxillary canines (PDC)
1 finding from 1 review
Table 4 (Naoumova 2015): probability of successful eruption depended on displacement severity; sector 2 (mild) 14/19 (74%) erupted vs sector 4 0/10 erupted; data refer to 59 teeth (mITT).
1 study · 59 participants
GRADE not reported
Adverse events (illness, allergy, bad taste, mucosal trauma) · Participants with full arch fixed orthodontic appliance(s) with molar tubes bonded to first or second permanent molars; excludes prior…
1 finding from 1 review