Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

15 questions · 18 findings · 4 reviews · All outcomes

No studies found 1 · 5.6%GRADE not reported 17 · 94.4%Very low 0 · 0%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%

Tooth/implant FDP with rigid connectors vs Tooth/implant FDP with non-rigid connectors

Prosthesis survival and crestal bone loss (5 years) · Patients with tooth/implant-supported FDPs; split-mouth
1 finding from 1 review

Tooth/implant FDP with rigid connectors vs Tooth/implant FDP with non-rigid connectors

Non-scheduled maintenance visits · Patients with tooth/implant-supported FDPs; split-mouth
1 finding from 1 review

Sinus lift with bone graft (granular Bio-Oss) vs Sinus lift without bone graft (Inion resorbable rigid barrier maintaining space / no bone)

Bone gain · Patients with an atrophic maxillary sinus requiring augmentation (1 to 5 mm residual bone height)

Sinus lift with bone graft (granular Bio-Oss) showed no clear difference in bone gain compared with sinus lift without bone graft (Inion resorbable rigid barrier…; GRADE not reported.

4 findings from 1 review
Show 1 more finding

Sinus lift with bone graft (granular Bio-Oss) vs Sinus lift without bone graft (Inion resorbable rigid barrier maintaining space / no bone)

Prosthesis failure · Patients with an atrophic maxillary sinus requiring augmentation (1 to 5 mm residual bone height)

Sinus lift with bone graft (granular Bio-Oss) showed no clear difference in prosthesis failure compared with sinus lift without bone graft (Inion resorbable rigid barrier…; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Sinus lift with bone graft (granular Bio-Oss) vs Sinus lift without bone graft (Inion resorbable rigid barrier maintaining space / no bone)

Complications · Patients with an atrophic maxillary sinus requiring augmentation (1 to 5 mm residual bone height)

Sinus lift with bone graft (granular Bio-Oss) showed no clear difference in complications compared with sinus lift without bone graft (Inion resorbable rigid barrier…; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Sinus lift with bone graft (granular Bio-Oss) vs Sinus lift without bone graft (Inion resorbable rigid barrier maintaining space / no bone)

Augmentation procedure failure · Patients with an atrophic maxillary sinus requiring augmentation (1 to 5 mm residual bone height)

Sinus lift with bone graft (granular Bio-Oss) showed no clear difference in augmentation procedure failure compared with sinus lift without bone graft (Inion resorbable rigid barrier…; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Sinus lift with bone graft (granular Bio-Oss) vs Sinus lift without bone graft (Inion resorbable rigid barrier maintaining space / no bone)

Implant failure · Patients with an atrophic maxillary sinus requiring augmentation (1 to 5 mm residual bone height)

Sinus lift with bone graft (granular Bio-Oss) showed no clear difference in implant failure compared with sinus lift without bone graft (Inion resorbable rigid barrier…; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Squeezable (modified) feeding bottle vs Rigid feeding bottle

Energy and protein intake · Infants up to 6 months (from term) born with cleft lip, cleft palate or cleft lip and palate (Pierre Robin sequence or other syndromes…
1 finding from 1 review

Squeezable (modified) feeding bottle vs Rigid feeding bottle

Weight (kg) · Infants up to 6 months (from term) born with cleft lip, cleft palate or cleft lip and palate (Pierre Robin sequence or other syndromes…

Squeezable (modified) feeding bottle showed no clear difference in weight (kg) compared with rigid feeding bottle; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Squeezable (modified) feeding bottle vs Rigid feeding bottle

Reliability of feeding method (number of times bottle modified) · Infants up to 6 months (from term) born with cleft lip, cleft palate or cleft lip and palate (Pierre Robin sequence or other syndromes…
1 finding from 1 review

Squeezable (modified) feeding bottle vs Rigid feeding bottle

Length (cm) · Infants up to 6 months (from term) born with cleft lip, cleft palate or cleft lip and palate (Pierre Robin sequence or other syndromes…

Squeezable (modified) feeding bottle showed no clear difference in length (cm) compared with rigid feeding bottle; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Squeezable (modified) feeding bottle vs Rigid feeding bottle

Quality of life and parental satisfaction (crying, feeding, sleeping, playing time; 24-hour parental log) · Infants up to 6 months (from term) born with cleft lip, cleft palate or cleft lip and palate (Pierre Robin sequence or other syndromes…
1 finding from 1 review

Squeezable (modified) feeding bottle vs Rigid feeding bottle

Head circumference (mm) · Infants up to 6 months (from term) born with cleft lip, cleft palate or cleft lip and palate (Pierre Robin sequence or other syndromes…

Squeezable (modified) feeding bottle led to lower head circumference (cm) compared with rigid feeding bottle; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Open reduction and fixation vs Closed (conservative) management (no active intervention other than soft diet, analgesics or antibiotics; or intermaxillary/maxillary-mandibular fixation with rigid or elastic traction)

Outcome not reported · Adults, over 18 years of age, with unilateral or bilateral fractures of the mandibular condyles

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review