Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

33 questions · 33 findings · 5 reviews · Endodontics and dental trauma

Sort:Best matchNewest Highest certainty Download CSV

No studies found 16 · 48.5%GRADE not reported 12 · 36.4%Very low 5 · 15.2%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%

Low‐level laser therapy vs Low-level laser therapy (LLLT) + calcium hydroxide

Clinical failure · Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth

1 finding from 1 review

Pulp treatment for extensive decay in primary teeth 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes
6 and 12 months
No clinical failure in any participant (Fernandes 2015); not estimable
1 study · 30 participants
GRADE not reported

Low‐level laser therapy vs Low-level laser therapy (LLLT) + calcium hydroxide

Radiological failure · Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth

Low-level laser therapy (LLLT) showed no clear difference in radiological failure compared with low-level laser therapy (LLLT) + calcium hydroxide; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Pulp treatment for extensive decay in primary teeth 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes
12 months
RR 1.00 [0.24, 4.18]
1 study · 30 participants
GRADE not reported

Repositioning of ankylosed teeth after osteotomy followed or not by distraction osteogenesis, or after luxation vs Conventional orthodontic treatment or follow-up with no specific treatment for ankylosis

Outcome not reported · Any patient with ankylosis and displacement of permanent front teeth diagnosed by clinical and radiographic assessment, with or without…

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions for treating traumatised ankylosed permanent front teeth 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes
no estimate extracted
0 studies
No studies found

Low-level diode laser vs Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA)

Overall failure · Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth

Low-level diode laser showed no clear difference in overall failure compared with mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Pulp treatment for extensive decay in primary teeth 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes
12 months
RR 4.00 [0.49, 32.72]
1 study · 40 participants
GRADE not reported

Low‐level laser therapy vs Formocresol (FC)

Clinical failure · Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth

1 finding from 1 review

Pulp treatment for extensive decay in primary teeth 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes
6 and 12 months
No clinical failure in any participant (Fernandes 2015); not estimable
1 study · 30 participants
GRADE not reported

Low‐level laser therapy vs Calcium hydroxide (CH)

Radiological failure · Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth

Low-level laser therapy (LLLT) showed no clear difference in radiological failure compared with calcium hydroxide (CH); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Pulp treatment for extensive decay in primary teeth 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes
6 and 12 months
RR 0.50 [0.15, 1.64]
1 study · 30 participants
GRADE not reported

Low‐level laser therapy vs Calcium hydroxide (CH)

Clinical failure · Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth

1 finding from 1 review

Pulp treatment for extensive decay in primary teeth 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes
6 and 12 months
No clinical failure in any participant (Fernandes 2015); not estimable
1 study · 30 participants
GRADE not reported

Low‐level laser therapy vs Formocresol (FC)

Radiological failure · Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth

Low-level laser therapy (LLLT) showed no clear difference in radiological failure compared with formocresol (FC); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Pulp treatment for extensive decay in primary teeth 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes
6 and 12 months
RR 7.00 [0.39, 124.83]
1 study · 30 participants
GRADE not reported

Low‐level laser therapy vs Placebo (sham) laser therapy

Maximum pain (verbal rating scale, VRS) · People requiring retreatment of periapical lesions (failed root canal therapy)

1 finding from 1 review

Endodontic procedures for retreatment of periapical lesions 2016 · Cochrane All outcomes
first postoperative week
Maximum pain (VRS): 0 per 1000 (placebo) vs 0 per 1000 (LLLT); effect not estimable; 52 participants. No high-pain events in either group.
1 study · 52 participants
Very low

Low‐level laser therapy vs Control (no laser device used)

Maximum pain (verbal rating scale, VRS) · People requiring retreatment of periapical lesions (failed root canal therapy)

It is very uncertain whether low energy level laser therapy (LLLT) changes maximum pain (verbal rating scale, VRS) compared with control (no laser device used) (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Endodontic procedures for retreatment of periapical lesions 2016 · Cochrane All outcomes
first postoperative week
RR 0.04 [0.00, 0.71]
1 study · 44 participants
Very low

Hyperbaric oxygen (following replantation) vs control

Tooth survival · People with avulsed and replanted permanent (front) teeth

It is very uncertain whether hyperbaric oxygen (following replantation) changes tooth survival at 12 months compared with control (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions for treating traumatised permanent front teeth: avulsed (knocked out) and replanted 2019 · Cochrane All outcomes
12 months
RR 1.21 [1.07, 1.36]
1 study · 69 participants
Very low

Hyperbaric oxygen (following replantation) vs control

Adverse effects · People with avulsed and replanted permanent (front) teeth

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions for treating traumatised permanent front teeth: avulsed (knocked out) and replanted 2019 · Cochrane All outcomes
Chen 2000 did not report this outcome; following email correspondence, authors reported no adverse effects were seen (uncertain whether formally assessed).
1 study
GRADE not reported

Hyperbaric oxygen (following replantation) vs control

Pulpal healing at 12 months · People with avulsed and replanted permanent (front) teeth

It is very uncertain whether hyperbaric oxygen (following replantation) changes pulpal healing at 12 months compared with control (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions for treating traumatised permanent front teeth: avulsed (knocked out) and replanted 2019 · Cochrane All outcomes
12 months
RR 1.25 [1.06, 1.48]
1 study · 69 participants
Very low

Hyperbaric oxygen (following replantation) vs control

Periodontal healing at 12 months · People with avulsed and replanted permanent (front) teeth

It is very uncertain whether hyperbaric oxygen (following replantation) changes periodontal healing at 12 months compared with control (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions for treating traumatised permanent front teeth: avulsed (knocked out) and replanted 2019 · Cochrane All outcomes
12 months
RR 2.04 [1.52, 2.73]
1 study · 69 participants
Very low

Low-level laser therapy (LLLT) + calcium hydroxide vs Formocresol (FC)

Radiological failure · Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth

Low-level laser therapy (LLLT) + calcium hydroxide showed no clear difference in radiological failure compared with formocresol (FC); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Pulp treatment for extensive decay in primary teeth 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes
12 months
RR 7.00 [0.39, 124.83]
1 study · 30 participants
GRADE not reported

Low-level laser therapy (LLLT) + calcium hydroxide vs Calcium hydroxide (CH)

Clinical failure · Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth

1 finding from 1 review

Pulp treatment for extensive decay in primary teeth 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes
6 and 12 months
No clinical failure in any participant (Fernandes 2015); not estimable
1 study · 30 participants
GRADE not reported

Low-level laser therapy (LLLT) + calcium hydroxide vs Calcium hydroxide (CH)

Radiological failure · Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth

Low-level laser therapy (LLLT) + calcium hydroxide showed no clear difference in radiological failure compared with calcium hydroxide (CH); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Pulp treatment for extensive decay in primary teeth 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes
12 months
RR 0.50 [0.15, 1.64]
1 study · 30 participants
GRADE not reported

Low-level laser therapy (LLLT) + calcium hydroxide vs Formocresol (FC)

Clinical failure · Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth

1 finding from 1 review

Pulp treatment for extensive decay in primary teeth 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes
6 and 12 months
No clinical failure in any participant (Fernandes 2015); not estimable
1 study · 30 participants
GRADE not reported

Endodontic therapy (surgical or non-surgical) performed with the aid of one or more magnification devices (surgical microscope, endoscope or magnifying loupes) vs The same endodontic therapy performed without magnification devices (without visual enhancers)

Quality of root-end filling (retrograde/surgical treatment) · Patients of any age who received endodontic therapy and were followed up for at least 1 year after treatment

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Magnification devices for endodontic therapy 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes
No included study assessed this outcome; the review notes that such secondary outcomes were only sporadically reported and were never statistically assessed.
Studies not reported
No studies found

Endodontic therapy performed with one type of magnification device (surgical microscope, endoscope or magnifying loupes) vs Endodontic therapy performed with a different type of magnification device

Quality of root-end filling (retrograde/surgical treatment) · Patients of any age who received endodontic therapy and were followed up for at least 1 year after treatment

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Magnification devices for endodontic therapy 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes
No included study assessed this outcome; the review notes that such secondary outcomes were only sporadically reported and were never statistically assessed.
Studies not reported
No studies found