Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

101 questions · 107 findings · 22 reviews · All outcomes

No studies found 21 · 19.6%GRADE not reported 52 · 48.6%Very low 11 · 10.3%Low 21 · 19.6%Moderate 2 · 1.9%High 0 · 0%

LongoVital (herbal plus vitamin component) vs LongoVital (herbal component alone)

Number of ulcer-free days and number of new ulcers · Participants with a previous or current history of recurrent aphthous stomatitis (RAS), diagnosed on history and clinical examination;…
1 finding from 1 review
  • A single trial at high risk of bias (Kolseth 2005) randomised participants to the herbal component of LongoVital alone or LongoVital with herbal plus vitamin component. Data presented as medians with 95% CIs,…
    1 study · 40 participants
    GRADE not reported

LongoVital (herbal plus vitamin component) vs LongoVital (herbal component alone)

Adverse effects · Participants with a previous or current history of recurrent aphthous stomatitis (RAS), diagnosed on history and clinical examination;…
1 finding from 1 review

LongoVital (herbal component alone) vs placebo

General degree of discomfort · Participants with a previous or current history of recurrent aphthous stomatitis (RAS), diagnosed on history and clinical examination;…

LongoVital (herbal component alone) showed no clear difference in general degree of discomfort compared with placebo; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

LongoVital (herbal component alone) vs placebo

Number of days of pain (monthly average) · Participants with a previous or current history of recurrent aphthous stomatitis (RAS), diagnosed on history and clinical examination;…

LongoVital (herbal component alone) showed no clear difference in number of days of pain (monthly average) compared with placebo; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

LongoVital (herbal component alone) vs placebo

Mean size of ulcers · Participants with a previous or current history of recurrent aphthous stomatitis (RAS), diagnosed on history and clinical examination;…

LongoVital (herbal component alone) showed no clear difference in mean size of ulcers compared with placebo; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

LongoVital (herbal component alone) vs placebo

Number of days of ulcers (monthly average) · Participants with a previous or current history of recurrent aphthous stomatitis (RAS), diagnosed on history and clinical examination;…

LongoVital (herbal component alone) showed no clear difference in number of days of ulcers (monthly average) compared with placebo; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

LongoVital (herbal component alone) vs placebo

Number of ulcer-free days and number of new ulcers · Participants with a previous or current history of recurrent aphthous stomatitis (RAS), diagnosed on history and clinical examination;…
1 finding from 1 review
  • Kolseth 2005 (high risk of bias): 40 patients randomised to the herbal component of LongoVital alone or placebo; data presented as medians with 95% CIs, unsuitable for further analysis; no statistically significant…
    1 study · 40 participants
    GRADE not reported

LongoVital (herbal component alone) vs placebo

Adverse effects · Participants with a previous or current history of recurrent aphthous stomatitis (RAS), diagnosed on history and clinical examination;…
1 finding from 1 review

LongoVital (herbal plus vitamin component) vs placebo

Number of ulcer-free days and number of new ulcers · Participants with a previous or current history of recurrent aphthous stomatitis (RAS), diagnosed on history and clinical examination;…
1 finding from 1 review
  • Forty patients were randomised to receive LongoVital (herbal plus vitamin) or placebo (Kolseth 2005). Data presented as medians with 95% confidence intervals, unsuitable for further analysis. The authors report no…
    1 study · 40 participants
    GRADE not reported

Maxillary sinus lift (augmentation) with long implants vs Short implants (5 to 8.5 mm) without sinus augmentation

Patient satisfaction · Patients with missing teeth and an atrophic posterior maxilla, with residual bone height between 4 and 9 mm below the maxillary sinus
1 finding from 1 review

Maxillary sinus lift (augmentation) with long implants vs Short implants (5 to 8.5 mm) without sinus augmentation

Treatment costs · Patients with missing teeth and an atrophic posterior maxilla, with residual bone height between 4 and 9 mm below the maxillary sinus

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Maxillary sinus lift (augmentation) with long implants vs Short implants (5 to 8.5 mm) without sinus augmentation

Patient preference · Patients with missing teeth and an atrophic posterior maxilla, with residual bone height between 4 and 9 mm below the maxillary sinus
1 finding from 1 review

Maxillary sinus lift (augmentation) with long implants vs Short implants (5 to 8.5 mm) without sinus augmentation

Complications (at treated sites) · Patients with missing teeth and an atrophic posterior maxilla, with residual bone height between 4 and 9 mm below the maxillary sinus

Maxillary sinus lift (augmentation) with long implants may leads to higher complications (at treated sites) compared with short implants (5 to 8.5 mm) without sinus augmentation (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Maxillary sinus lift (augmentation) with long implants vs Short implants (5 to 8.5 mm) without sinus augmentation

Augmentation procedure failure · Patients with missing teeth and an atrophic posterior maxilla, with residual bone height between 4 and 9 mm below the maxillary sinus
1 finding from 1 review

Maxillary sinus lift (augmentation) with long implants vs Short implants (5 to 8.5 mm) without sinus augmentation

Implant failure · Patients with missing teeth and an atrophic posterior maxilla, with residual bone height between 4 and 9 mm below the maxillary sinus

Maxillary sinus lift (augmentation) with long implants showed no clear difference in implant failure compared with short implants (5 to 8.5 mm) without sinus augmentation (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Maxillary sinus lift (augmentation) with long implants vs Short implants (5 to 8.5 mm) without sinus augmentation

Prosthesis failure · Patients with missing teeth and an atrophic posterior maxilla, with residual bone height between 4 and 9 mm below the maxillary sinus

Maxillary sinus lift (augmentation) with long implants showed no clear difference in prosthesis failure compared with short implants (5 to 8.5 mm) without sinus augmentation (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Inlay/interposed bone graft (iliac or Bio-Oss block) + longer implants (vertical augmentation) vs Short implants (8 to 11 mm) without augmentation

Severe pain for > 1 week · Patients with atrophic (resorbed) mandibles needing implants

Inlay/interposed bone graft (iliac or Bio-Oss block) + longer… led to higher severe pain for > 1 week compared with short implants (8 to 11 mm) without augmentation; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Inlay/interposed bone graft (iliac or Bio-Oss block) + longer implants (vertical augmentation) vs Short implants (8 to 11 mm) without augmentation

Experienced the operation negatively · Patients with atrophic (resorbed) mandibles needing implants

Inlay/interposed bone graft (iliac or Bio-Oss block) + longer… showed no clear difference in experienced the operation negatively compared with short implants (8 to 11 mm) without augmentation; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Inlay/interposed bone graft (iliac or Bio-Oss block) + longer implants (vertical augmentation) vs Short implants (8 to 11 mm) without augmentation

No improvement of facial appearance (3 weeks) · Patients with atrophic (resorbed) mandibles needing implants

Inlay/interposed bone graft (iliac or Bio-Oss block) + longer… led to lower no improvement of facial appearance (3 weeks) compared with short implants (8 to 11 mm) without augmentation; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review