What do systematic reviews say?

Superselective neck dissection vs Elective selective neck dissection

• Interventions for the treatment of oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancers: surgical treatment 2023 · Cochrane All outcomes

  36 months
  Disease-free survival: Pandey 2018 reported 83% (superselective) vs 91% (selective) at median 36 months, not significant (P=0.69); unable to analyse (variable follow-up); 32 participants (1 RCT).
  1 study · 32 participants
  Very low

Superselective neck dissection vs Elective selective neck dissection

• Interventions for the treatment of oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancers: surgical treatment 2023 · Cochrane All outcomes
  Adverse events: no adverse events reported; 72 participants (2 RCTs).
  2 studies · 72 participants
  Very low

Superselective neck dissection vs Elective selective neck dissection

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Interventions for the treatment of oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancers: surgical treatment 2023 · Cochrane All outcomes
  Total mortality: not reported.
  0 studies
  No studies found

Superselective neck dissection vs Elective selective neck dissection

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Interventions for the treatment of oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancers: surgical treatment 2023 · Cochrane All outcomes
  Recurrence: outcome not reported in a usable way in either study.
  0 studies
  No studies found

Superselective neck dissection vs Elective selective neck dissection

• Interventions for the treatment of oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancers: surgical treatment 2023 · Cochrane All outcomes
  Locoregional recurrence: data not presented usably and inconsistent; Pandey 2018 no difference (3/12 vs 3/20); Rastogi 2018 lower recurrence with superselective (Kaplan-Meier P<0.05); 72 participants (2 RCTs).
  2 studies · 72 participants
  Very low

Non-selective carious tissue removal and conventional restoration (CR) vs Selective carious tissue removal (selective excavation, SE)

It is very uncertain whether non-selective carious tissue removal and conventional restoration (CR) changes failure of therapy compared with selective carious tissue removal (selective excavation, SE) (very low certainty).

• Interventions for treating cavitated or dentine carious lesions 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes

  12 months · Cavitated but not deep lesions, primary dentition
  OR 0.62 [0.21, 1.88]
  2 studies · 204 participants
  Very low
• Interventions for treating cavitated or dentine carious lesions 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes

  12-18 months · Deep lesions, permanent dentition
  OR 11.32 [1.97, 65.02]
  2 studies · 179 participants
  Very low
• Interventions for treating cavitated or dentine carious lesions 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes

  6-36 months · Deep lesions, primary dentition
  OR 4.43 [1.04, 18.77]
  4 studies · 265 participants
  Very low

Non-selective carious tissue removal and conventional restoration (CR) vs Selective carious tissue removal (selective excavation, SE)

• Interventions for treating cavitated or dentine carious lesions 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes

  Cavitated but not deep lesions, primary dentition
  Lesion progression reported narratively: Ribeiro 1999 found 6/24 lesions progressed after 12 months; not pooled and not GRADE-rated.
  1 study
  GRADE not reported

Selective carious tissue removal (selective excavation, SE) vs Hall Technique (sealing with a preformed metal crown)

It is very uncertain whether selective carious tissue removal (selective excavation, SE) changes failure of therapy compared with hall Technique (sealing with a preformed metal crown) (very low certainty).

• Interventions for treating cavitated or dentine carious lesions 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes

  24-36 months · Deep lesions, primary dentition
  OR 1.95 [0.57, 6.63]
  1 study · 72 participants
  Very low
• Interventions for treating cavitated or dentine carious lesions 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes

  24 months · Cavitated but not deep lesions, primary dentition
  OR 8.94 [0.57, 139.67]
  2 studies · 586 participants
  Very low

Selective carious tissue removal (selective excavation, SE) vs Stepwise carious tissue removal (SW)

• Interventions for treating cavitated or dentine carious lesions 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes

  Permanent and primary dentition
  Cost-effectiveness reported narratively: SE found more cost-effective than SW in permanent (Labib 2019) and primary teeth (Elhennawy 2021); not GRADE-rated.
  2 studies
  GRADE not reported

Selective carious tissue removal (selective excavation, SE) vs Stepwise carious tissue removal (SW)

Selective carious tissue removal (selective excavation, SE) probably leads to higher failure of therapy compared with stepwise carious tissue removal (SW) (moderate certainty).

• Interventions for treating cavitated or dentine carious lesions 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes

  12-60 months · Deep lesions, permanent dentition
  OR 2.25 [1.33, 3.82]
  3 studies · 371 participants
  Moderate
• Interventions for treating cavitated or dentine carious lesions 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes

  12-24 months · Deep lesions, primary dentition
  OR 2.05 [0.49, 8.62]
  2 studies · 126 participants
  Very low

Non-selective carious tissue removal and conventional restoration (CR) vs Stepwise carious tissue removal (SW)

Non-selective carious tissue removal and conventional restoration (CR) probably leads to higher failure of therapy compared with stepwise carious tissue removal (SW) (moderate certainty).

• Interventions for treating cavitated or dentine carious lesions 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes

  6-60 months · Deep lesions, permanent dentition
  OR 2.06 [1.34, 3.17]
  3 studies · 398 participants
  Moderate
• Interventions for treating cavitated or dentine carious lesions 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes

  12 months · Deep lesions, primary dentition
  OR 2.43 [0.65, 9.12]
  1 study · 63 participants
  Very low

Non-selective carious tissue removal and conventional restoration (CR) vs Hall Technique (sealing with a preformed metal crown)

Non-selective carious tissue removal and conventional restoration (CR) may leads to higher failure of therapy compared with hall Technique (sealing with a preformed metal crown) (low certainty).

• Interventions for treating cavitated or dentine carious lesions 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes

  30-60 months · Cavitated (not deep) lesions, primary dentition
  OR 8.35 [3.73, 18.68]
  2 studies · 249 participants
  Low

Non-selective carious tissue removal and conventional restoration (CR) vs Hall Technique (sealing with a preformed metal crown)

• Interventions for treating cavitated or dentine carious lesions 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes

  Primary dentition
  Cost-effectiveness reported narratively: HT found more cost-effective than CR in primary teeth (Innes 2011; Santamaria 2018); not GRADE-rated.
  2 studies
  GRADE not reported

Non-selective carious tissue removal and conventional restoration (CR) vs Non-restorative cavity control (NRCC)

It is very uncertain whether non-selective carious tissue removal and conventional restoration (CR) changes failure of therapy compared with non-restorative cavity control (NRCC) (very low certainty).

• Interventions for treating cavitated or dentine carious lesions 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes

  30 months · Cavitated lesions, primary dentition
  OR 1.16 [0.5, 2.71]
  1 study · 102 participants
  Very low

Wax (fluid wax), two stage-two step selective pressure final impression vs Polysulfide rubber (elastomer)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Final‐impression techniques and materials for making complete and removable partial dentures 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes
  Not measured
  0 studies
  No studies found

Wax (fluid wax), two stage-two step selective pressure final impression vs Polysulfide rubber (elastomer)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Final‐impression techniques and materials for making complete and removable partial dentures 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes
  Not measured
  0 studies
  No studies found

Wax (fluid wax), two stage-two step selective pressure final impression vs Polysulfide rubber (elastomer)

It is very uncertain whether wax (fluid wax), two stage-two step selective pressure final… changes number of border adjustments and sore spots after insertion of denture compared with polysulfide rubber (elastomer) (very low certainty).

• Final‐impression techniques and materials for making complete and removable partial dentures 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes

  1 year
  RR 0.81 [0.38, 1.70]
  1 study · 27 participants
  Very low

Selective pressure final-impression technique (two stage-two step, silicone elastomer) vs Traditional technique (redistributing pressure) and control technique (relatively mucostatic standard procedure)

• Final‐impression techniques and materials for making complete and removable partial dentures 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes

  4 to 5 weeks
  33 participants chose dentures made using the selective pressure technique, 19 chose the traditionally-made denture and 14 chose the control denture. There was no clear preference between the traditional and control…
  1 study · 69 participants
  Low

Elective radical (comprehensive) neck dissection vs Elective selective neck dissection

• Interventions for the treatment of oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancers: surgical treatment 2023 · Cochrane All outcomes
  Total mortality: 2 trials reported HR but could not be pooled (different surgical procedures); neither indicated a difference (BHNCSG 1998 HR 1.14, 0.70 to 1.86; Bier 1994 HR 0.87, 0.41 to 1.83); 252 participants (2…
  2 studies · 252 participants
  Very low

Elective radical (comprehensive) neck dissection vs Elective selective neck dissection

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Interventions for the treatment of oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancers: surgical treatment 2023 · Cochrane All outcomes
  Locoregional recurrence: not reported.
  0 studies
  No studies found