Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

122 questions · 149 findings · 29 reviews · Oral Health

No studies found 21 · 14.1%GRADE not reported 88 · 59.1%Very low 11 · 7.4%Low 27 · 18.1%Moderate 2 · 1.3%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

Breastfeeding for more than 24 months vs Not breastfed at the same age or breastfed for a shorter duration

Early childhood caries (ECC) - incidence/risk · Children with exclusively primary dentition (age ≤71 months)

Breastfeeding beyond 24 months is associated with an increased risk (incidence) of early childhood caries versus not breastfeeding at the same age (RR 2.44, 95% CI 1.97 to 3.02; low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Longer follow-up vs Shorter follow-up

Annual increment in DMFS (D3) · Children and adolescents with permanent dentition

Not adjusted meta-regression beta was 0.43 per additional follow-up year.

5 findings from 1 review
  • Caries Progression Rates Revisited: A Systematic Review. 2019 All outcomes
    Per additional year of follow-up · Western or comparable populations · Not adjusted
    Meta-regression beta per year of follow-up 0.43 [0.04, 0.83]
    22 studies · 11300 participants
    GRADE not reported
  • Caries Progression Rates Revisited: A Systematic Review. 2019 All outcomes
    Per additional year of follow-up · Western or comparable populations · Adjusted for bitewings and age at baseline
    Meta-regression beta per year of follow-up 0.64 [0.31, 0.96]
    22 studies · 11300 participants
    GRADE not reported
  • Caries Progression Rates Revisited: A Systematic Review. 2019 All outcomes
    Per additional year of follow-up · Western or comparable populations · Adjusted for bitewings age at baseline and baseline caries experience
    Meta-regression beta per year of follow-up 0.37 [0.04, 0.70]
    22 studies · 11300 participants
    GRADE not reported
Show 2 more findings
  • Caries Progression Rates Revisited: A Systematic Review. 2019 All outcomes
    Per additional year of follow-up · Western or comparable populations · Adjusted for groups 1-4 including relevance of evidence and risk of bias
    Meta-regression beta per year of follow-up 0.46 [0.08, 0.83]
    22 studies · 11300 participants
    GRADE not reported
  • Caries Progression Rates Revisited: A Systematic Review. 2019 All outcomes
    Per additional year of follow-up · Western or comparable populations · Adjusted for groups 1-3 including decade and preventive intervention
    Meta-regression beta per year of follow-up 0.36 [-0.02, 0.73]
    22 studies · 11300 participants
    GRADE not reported

Longer follow-up vs Shorter follow-up

Annual increment in DMFT (D3) · Children and adolescents with permanent dentition

Not adjusted meta-regression beta was 0.18 per additional follow-up year.

5 findings from 1 review
  • Caries Progression Rates Revisited: A Systematic Review. 2019 All outcomes
    Per additional year of follow-up · Western or comparable populations · Not adjusted
    Meta-regression beta per year of follow-up 0.18 [-0.04, 0.40]
    13 studies · 24753 participants
    GRADE not reported
  • Caries Progression Rates Revisited: A Systematic Review. 2019 All outcomes
    Per additional year of follow-up · Western or comparable populations · Adjusted for bitewings and age at baseline
    Meta-regression beta per year of follow-up 0.18 [0.02, 0.35]
    13 studies · 24753 participants
    GRADE not reported
  • Caries Progression Rates Revisited: A Systematic Review. 2019 All outcomes
    Per additional year of follow-up · Western or comparable populations · Adjusted for bitewings age at baseline and baseline caries experience
    Meta-regression beta per year of follow-up 0.23 [0.06, 0.40]
    13 studies · 24753 participants
    GRADE not reported
Show 2 more findings
  • Caries Progression Rates Revisited: A Systematic Review. 2019 All outcomes
    Per additional year of follow-up · Western or comparable populations · Adjusted for groups 1-4 including relevance of evidence and risk of bias
    Meta-regression beta per year of follow-up -0.04 [-0.34, 0.26]
    13 studies · 24753 participants
    GRADE not reported
  • Caries Progression Rates Revisited: A Systematic Review. 2019 All outcomes
    Per additional year of follow-up · Western or comparable populations · Adjusted for groups 1-3 including decade and preventive intervention
    Meta-regression beta per year of follow-up 0.07 [-0.24, 0.39]
    13 studies · 24753 participants
    GRADE not reported

Longer follow-up vs Shorter follow-up

Caries incidence rate per person-year at risk (D3) · Children and adolescents with permanent dentition

Adjusted for groups 1-4 including relevance of evidence and risk of bias meta-regression beta was -0.02 per additional follow-up year.

5 findings from 1 review
  • Caries Progression Rates Revisited: A Systematic Review. 2019 All outcomes
    Per additional year of follow-up · Western or comparable populations · Adjusted for groups 1-4 including relevance of evidence and risk of bias
    Meta-regression beta per year of follow-up -0.02 [-0.05, 0.01]
    15 studies · 10768 participants
    GRADE not reported
  • Caries Progression Rates Revisited: A Systematic Review. 2019 All outcomes
    Per additional year of follow-up · Western or comparable populations · Adjusted for bitewings age at baseline and baseline caries experience
    Meta-regression beta per year of follow-up 0.00 [-0.00, 0.01]
    15 studies · 10768 participants
    GRADE not reported
  • Caries Progression Rates Revisited: A Systematic Review. 2019 All outcomes
    Per additional year of follow-up · Western or comparable populations · Adjusted for bitewings and age at baseline
    Meta-regression beta per year of follow-up 0.00 [-0.00, 0.01]
    15 studies · 10768 participants
    GRADE not reported
Show 2 more findings
  • Caries Progression Rates Revisited: A Systematic Review. 2019 All outcomes
    Per additional year of follow-up · Western or comparable populations · Adjusted for groups 1-3 including decade and preventive intervention
    Meta-regression beta per year of follow-up -0.00 [-0.02, 0.02]
    15 studies · 10768 participants
    GRADE not reported
  • Caries Progression Rates Revisited: A Systematic Review. 2019 All outcomes
    Per additional year of follow-up · Western or comparable populations · Not adjusted
    Meta-regression beta per year of follow-up -0.00 [-0.01, 0.01]
    15 studies · 10768 participants
    GRADE not reported

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

Daily chewing gum for 2 weeks or longer vs No gum chewing or control

Salivary flow rate (unstimulated) · Elderly (>60 years) and medically compromised adults with xerostomia / dry mouth

codex

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

Partial pulpotomy with one-unit longer follow-up vs Partial pulpotomy with one-unit shorter follow-up

Overall success (composite of clinical and radiographic success) · Adults aged 18 years or older with mature permanent teeth and carious pulp exposure

In the high-risk-study-excluded sensitivity meta-regression, longer follow-up was associated with lower success.

1 finding from 1 review

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