Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

22 questions · 22 findings · 5 reviews · Oral Health

No studies found 8 · 36.4%GRADE not reported 12 · 54.5%Very low 1 · 4.5%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 1 · 4.5%High 0 · 0%

ART using resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RM-GIC) vs Conventional treatment using RM-GIC

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

High-viscosity glass-ionomer ART restorations vs Conventional treatment using H-GIC (rotary instruments)

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

ART using glass ionomer cement (GIC) vs Amalgam restoration

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

ART using glass ionomer cement (GIC) vs Amalgam restoration

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

ART using resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RM-GIC) vs Conventional treatment using RM-GIC

Secondary caries · Older adults with root caries in permanent (mature) teeth (mean age 75 years)
1 finding from 1 review

ART using resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RM-GIC) vs Conventional treatment using RM-GIC

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

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

ART using glass ionomer cement (GIC) vs Amalgam restoration

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

ART using glass ionomer cement (GIC) vs Amalgam restoration

Participant experience (co-operation during procedure) · Children and adolescents with dental caries (primary teeth and permanent immature teeth)
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

Dual mini-screw implant vs Single mini-screw implant

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

Double primary (canine and first molar) tooth extraction vs Single primary (canine) tooth extraction

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

Extraction of the primary (baby) canine (single primary tooth extraction) vs No extraction (non-intervention control)

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

Bonded molar tubes (attached with adhesive) vs Molar bands (cemented, e.g. with glass ionomer cement)

Decalcification · Participants with full arch fixed orthodontic appliance(s) with molar tubes bonded to first or second permanent molars; excludes prior…

Bonded molar tubes (attached with adhesive) led to higher decalcification (participant level) compared with molar bands (cemented, e.g. with glass ionomer cement); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review