Evidence Gaps Analysis

3688 outcomes from 214 review series
Clear
CD002284
Current Version: CD002284.PUB2 | 1 older version
Current Evidence Gaps 4 gaps
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Downgrade Reason
children and adolescents fluoride mouthrinse (primarily supervised use in school setting) placebo or no treatment Changes in caries on the permanent teeth (D(M)FT increment - nearest to 3 years) Moderate Not specified
children and adolescents fluoride mouthrinse (primarily supervised use in school setting) placebo or no treatment Changes in caries on the surfaces of permanent teeth (D(M)FS increment - nearest to 3 years) Moderate Not specified
children and adolescents fluoride mouthrinse (primarily supervised use in school setting) placebo or no treatment Signs of acute toxicity during application of treatment (such as nausea/gagging/vomiting) No Evidence Yet N/A
children and adolescents fluoride mouthrinse (primarily supervised use in school setting) placebo or no treatment Unacceptability of treatment as measured by leaving study early Very Low Not specified
children and adolescents fluoride mouthrinse (primarily supervised use in school setting) placebo or no treatment Tooth staining Very Low Not specified
children and adolescents fluoride mouthrinse (primarily supervised use in school setting) placebo or no treatment Mucosal irritation/oral soft tissue allergic reaction Very Low Not specified
Previous Versions
CD002284
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Studies
Children aged 5-14 years Fluoride mouthrinse Placebo or no treatment Caries increment (D(M)FT prevented fraction) No Evidence Yet -
Children aged 5-14 years Fluoride mouthrinse No treatment Treatment unacceptability (dropouts) No Evidence Yet -
Children aged 5-14 years Fluoride mouthrinse Placebo or no treatment Proportion developing new caries No Evidence Yet -
Children aged 5-14 years Fluoride mouthrinse Placebo or no treatment Caries increment (D(M)FT) No Evidence Yet -
Children aged 5-14 years Fluoride mouthrinse Placebo or no treatment Caries increment (D(M)FS) No Evidence Yet -
Children aged 5-14 years Fluoride mouthrinse Placebo or no treatment Caries increment (D(M)FS prevented fraction) No Evidence Yet -
CD002778
Current Version: CD002778.PUB2
Current Evidence Gaps 15 gaps
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Downgrade Reason
TMD patients Stabilization splint Biofeedback Pain severity (PSS) No Evidence Yet N/A
TMD patients Stabilization splint Bite plates Helkimo dysfunction score No Evidence Yet N/A
TMD patients Stabilization splint Acupuncture Deviation to right No Evidence Yet N/A
TMD patients Stabilization splint Acupuncture Pain on palpation (left) No Evidence Yet N/A
TMD patients Stabilization splint Acupuncture Pain on palpation (right) No Evidence Yet N/A
TMD patients Stabilization splint Non-occluding splint Work efficiency No Evidence Yet N/A
TMD patients Stabilization splint Non-occluding splint Overall improvement No Evidence Yet N/A
TMD patients Stabilization splint Non-occluding splint Maximal opening No Evidence Yet N/A
TMD patients Stabilization splint No treatment Depression (CES-D) No Evidence Yet N/A
TMD patients Stabilization splint Minimal treatment Pain on palpation No Evidence Yet N/A
TMD patients Stabilization splint Minimal treatment Present pain (VAS) No Evidence Yet N/A
TMD patients Stabilization splint No treatment Pain (PSS) No Evidence Yet N/A
TMD patients Stabilization splint No treatment Pain (PPI) No Evidence Yet N/A
TMD patients Stabilization splint Biofeedback Depression (CES-D) No Evidence Yet N/A
TMD patients Stabilization splint Biofeedback Treatment credibility No Evidence Yet N/A
CD002779
Current Version: CD002779.PUB3 | 2 older versions
Current Evidence Gaps 52 gaps
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Downgrade Reason
People diagnosed with burning mouth syndrome Physical barriers (tongue protector) Placebo Adverse effects Low Not specified
People diagnosed with burning mouth syndrome Anticonvulsants (gabapentin: +/- alpha lipoic acid (ALA)) Placebo Change in quality of life (QoL) No Evidence Yet N/A
People diagnosed with burning mouth syndrome Anticonvulsants (gabapentin: +/- alpha lipoic acid (ALA)) Placebo Change in feeling of dryness No Evidence Yet N/A
People diagnosed with burning mouth syndrome Anticonvulsants (gabapentin: +/- alpha lipoic acid (ALA)) Placebo Change in taste No Evidence Yet N/A
People diagnosed with burning mouth syndrome Antidepressants (trazodone) Placebo Change in taste No Evidence Yet N/A
People diagnosed with burning mouth syndrome Antidepressants (trazodone) Placebo Change in feeling of dryness No Evidence Yet N/A
People diagnosed with burning mouth syndrome Benzodiazepines (topical/systemic clonazepam) Placebo Change in feeling of dryness No Evidence Yet N/A
People diagnosed with burning mouth syndrome Cholinergics (bethanechol) Placebo Change in quality of life (QoL) No Evidence Yet N/A
People diagnosed with burning mouth syndrome Cholinergics (bethanechol) Placebo Change in feeling of dryness No Evidence Yet N/A
People diagnosed with burning mouth syndrome Cholinergics (bethanechol) Placebo Change in taste No Evidence Yet N/A
People diagnosed with burning mouth syndrome Dietary supplements Placebo Change in taste No Evidence Yet N/A
People diagnosed with burning mouth syndrome Dietary supplements Placebo Change in feeling of dryness No Evidence Yet N/A
People diagnosed with burning mouth syndrome Electromagnetic radiation (low-level laser therapy) Placebo Change in feeling of dryness No Evidence Yet N/A
People diagnosed with burning mouth syndrome Electromagnetic radiation (low-level laser therapy) Placebo Change in taste No Evidence Yet N/A
People diagnosed with burning mouth syndrome Electromagnetic radiation (low-level laser therapy) Placebo Adverse effects No Evidence Yet N/A
People diagnosed with burning mouth syndrome Physical barriers (tongue protector) Placebo Change in feeling of dryness No Evidence Yet N/A
People diagnosed with burning mouth syndrome Physical barriers (tongue protector) Placebo Change in taste No Evidence Yet N/A
People diagnosed with burning mouth syndrome Psychological therapies (cognitive therapy) Placebo Change in taste No Evidence Yet N/A
People diagnosed with burning mouth syndrome Psychological therapies (cognitive therapy) Placebo Adverse effects No Evidence Yet N/A
People diagnosed with burning mouth syndrome Psychological therapies (cognitive therapy) Placebo Change in quality of life (QoL) No Evidence Yet N/A
People diagnosed with burning mouth syndrome Psychological therapies (cognitive therapy) Placebo Change in feeling of dryness No Evidence Yet N/A
People diagnosed with burning mouth syndrome Topical treatments Placebo Change in quality of life (QoL) No Evidence Yet N/A
People diagnosed with burning mouth syndrome Topical treatments (lactoperoxidase oral rinse (Biotene)) Placebo long term symptom relief (> 3 to 6 months) No Evidence Yet N/A
People diagnosed with burning mouth syndrome Topical treatments (people treated with capsaicin oral rinse) Placebo long term symptom relief (> 3 to 6 months) No Evidence Yet N/A
People diagnosed with burning mouth syndrome Anticonvulsants (gabapentin: +/- alpha lipoic acid (ALA)) Placebo Symptom relief: short-term (≤ 3 months) - Bespoke geographical burning distribution numerical scale (0-4) (Dichotomised) Very Low Not specified
People diagnosed with burning mouth syndrome Anticonvulsants (gabapentin: +/- alpha lipoic acid (ALA)) Placebo Adverse effects - Drowsiness (gabapentin alone) Very Low Not specified
People diagnosed with burning mouth syndrome Antidepressants (trazodone) Placebo Adverse effects - Dizziness Very Low Not specified
People diagnosed with burning mouth syndrome Antidepressants (trazodone) Placebo Adverse effects - Drowsiness Very Low Not specified
People diagnosed with burning mouth syndrome Antidepressants (trazodone) Placebo Symptom relief: short-term (3 months) - Mean VAS pain score Very Low Not specified
People diagnosed with burning mouth syndrome Antidepressants (trazodone) Placebo Change in quality of life (QoL): short-term (3 months) - Mean Beck Depression Inventory score Very Low Not specified
People diagnosed with burning mouth syndrome Benzodiazepines (systemic clonazepam) Placebo Change in quality of life (QoL): short-term (3 months) - Mean depression score Very Low Not specified
People diagnosed with burning mouth syndrome Benzodiazepines (systemic clonazepam) Placebo Change in taste: short-term (≤ 3 months) - Mean taste test score Very Low Not specified
People diagnosed with burning mouth syndrome Benzodiazepines (topical clonazepam) Placebo Adverse effects Very Low Not specified
People diagnosed with burning mouth syndrome Benzodiazepines (topical/systemic clonazepam) Placebo Symptom relief: short-term (3 months) - Mean VAS pain score Very Low Not specified
People diagnosed with burning mouth syndrome Cholinergics (bethanechol) Placebo Adverse effects Very Low Not specified
People diagnosed with burning mouth syndrome Cholinergics (bethanechol) Placebo Symptom relief: short-term (3 months) - Bespoke BMS symptomology change scale (Dichotomised) Very Low Not specified
People diagnosed with burning mouth syndrome Dietary supplements Placebo Adverse effects Very Low Not specified
People diagnosed with burning mouth syndrome dietary supplements (Interventions evaluated for short term symptom relief included: ALA without adjunctive active ingredients (3 RCTs) ALA with vitamins (5 RCTs) ALA with lycopene and green tea extract (2 RCTs) hypericum perforatum (St John's Wort) (1 RCT) 'Catuama' herbal compound (1 RCT) lycopene (1 RCT)) Placebo Symptom relief: short-term (3 months) Very Low Not specified
People diagnosed with burning mouth syndrome Dietary supplements (lycopene) Placebo Change in QoL - depression: short-term (3 months) - Mean HAD depression score Very Low Not specified
People diagnosed with burning mouth syndrome Dietary supplements (lycopene) Placebo Change in quality of life (QoL): short-term (3 months) - Mean OHIP-14 score Very Low Not specified
People diagnosed with burning mouth syndrome Dietary supplements (lycopene) Placebo Change in QoL - anxiety: short-term (3 months) - Mean HAD anxiety score Very Low Not specified
People diagnosed with burning mouth syndrome Electromagnetic radiation (low-level laser therapy) Placebo Change in quality of life (QoL): short-term (3 months) - Mean OHIP-14 score Very Low Not specified
People diagnosed with burning mouth syndrome Electromagnetic radiation (low-level laser therapy) Placebo Symptom relief: short-term (3 months) - Mean VAS score Very Low Not specified
People diagnosed with burning mouth syndrome Physical barriers (tongue protector) Placebo Change in quality of life (QoL): short-term (3 months) - Mean OHIP-49 score Very Low Not specified
People diagnosed with burning mouth syndrome Physical barriers (tongue protector) Placebo Change in QoL - depression: short-term (3 months) - Mean HAD depression score Very Low Not specified
People diagnosed with burning mouth syndrome Physical barriers (tongue protector) Placebo Change in QoL - anxiety: short-term (3 months) - Mean HAD anxiety score Very Low Not specified
People diagnosed with burning mouth syndrome Physical barriers (tongue protector) Placebo Symptom relief: short-term (3 months) - Mean VAS pain score Very Low Not specified
People diagnosed with burning mouth syndrome Psychological therapies (cognitive therapy) Placebo Symptom relief: long-term (> 3 to 6 months) - Mean VAS pain score Very Low Not specified
People diagnosed with burning mouth syndrome Topical treatments (benzydamine hydrochloride oral rinse) Placebo Adverse effects Very Low Not specified
People diagnosed with burning mouth syndrome Topical treatments (Interventions evaluated for short term symptom relief included: benzydamine hydrochloride oral rinse (1 RCT) lactoperoxidase oral rinse (Biotene) (2 RCTs) topical urea (10%) (1 RCT) capsaicin oral rinse (1 RCT)) Placebo Symptom relief: short-term (3 months) Very Low Not specified
People diagnosed with burning mouth syndrome Topical treatments (topical urea (10%)) Placebo Change in taste: short-term (3 months) - Mean Quantitative Sensory Testing (QST) score: gustative threshold Very Low Not specified
People diagnosed with burning mouth syndrome Topical treatments (topical urea (10%)) Placebo Change in feeling of dryness: short-term (3 months) - Xerostomia questionnaire Very Low Not specified
Previous Versions
CD002779.PUB2
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Studies
BMS patients Alpha-lipoic acid Cellulose starch Symptom improvement (first trial) No Evidence Yet -
BMS patients Alpha-lipoic acid Placebo (xylitol) Symptom improvement (third trial) No Evidence Yet -
BMS patients Alpha-lipoic acid Cellulose starch Symptom improvement (second trial) No Evidence Yet -
BMS patients Benzydamine hydrochloride Placebo BMS symptom severity No Evidence Yet -
BMS patients Clonazepam Placebo Pain intensity reduction No Evidence Yet -
BMS patients Trazodone Placebo Pain and pain-related symptoms No Evidence Yet -
CD002779
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Studies
BMS patients Alpha-lipoic acid Cellulose starch Symptom improvement No Evidence Yet -
BMS patients Benzydamine hydrochloride rinse Placebo and no treatment Symptom severity No Evidence Yet -
BMS patients Clomipramine/Mianserin Placebo Pain improvement No Evidence Yet -
BMS patients Trazodone (200mg/day) Placebo Pain intensity No Evidence Yet -
Postmenopausal women with BMS Hormone replacement therapy (estrone/progesterone) Placebo Symptom improvement No Evidence Yet -
Resistant BMS patients Cognitive behavioral therapy Attention placebo Pain intensity No Evidence Yet -
CD002780
Current Version: CD002780.PUB2
Current Evidence Gaps 10 gaps
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Downgrade Reason
Children age ≤14 Fluoride gel Fluoride mouthrinse Caries increment (DMFS) No Evidence Yet N/A
Children age ≤14 Fluoride toothpaste Any TFT Drop outs No Evidence Yet N/A
Children age ≤14 Fluoride toothpaste Any TFT Caries increment (DMFS) No Evidence Yet N/A
Children age ≤14 Fluoride toothpaste Fluoride mouthrinse Caries increment (DMFS) No Evidence Yet N/A
Children age ≤14 Fluoride toothpaste Fluoride gel Caries increment (DMFS) No Evidence Yet N/A
Children age ≤14 Fluoride toothpaste Fluoride mouthrinse Drop outs No Evidence Yet N/A
Children age ≤14 Fluoride varnish Fluoride mouthrinse Drop outs No Evidence Yet N/A
Children age ≤14 Fluoride varnish Fluoride mouthrinse Caries increment (DMFS) No Evidence Yet N/A
Children age ≤14 Fluoride varnish Fluoride gel Caries increment (DMFS) No Evidence Yet N/A
Children age ≤14 Fluoride varnish Fluoride toothpaste Drop outs No Evidence Yet N/A
CD002781
Current Version: CD002781.PUB2
Current Evidence Gaps 12 gaps
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Downgrade Reason
Children aged ≤14 years Any topical fluoride + toothpaste Toothpaste alone Caries increment (D(M)FS PF) No Evidence Yet N/A
Children aged ≤14 years Fluoride gel + mouthrinse Gel alone Caries increment (D(M)FS PF) No Evidence Yet N/A
Children aged ≤14 years Fluoride gel + toothpaste Gel alone Caries increment (D(M)FS PF) No Evidence Yet N/A
Children aged ≤14 years Fluoride gel + toothpaste Toothpaste alone Caries increment (D(M)FS PF) No Evidence Yet N/A
Children aged ≤14 years Fluoride mouthrinse + gel Mouthrinse alone Caries increment (D(M)FS PF) No Evidence Yet N/A
Children aged ≤14 years Fluoride mouthrinse + toothpaste Toothpaste alone Caries increment (D(M)FS PF) No Evidence Yet N/A
Children aged ≤14 years Fluoride mouthrinse + toothpaste Toothpaste alone Treatment dropouts No Evidence Yet N/A
Children aged ≤14 years Fluoride mouthrinse + toothpaste Mouthrinse alone Caries increment (D(M)FS PF) No Evidence Yet N/A
Children aged ≤14 years Fluoride mouthrinse + toothpaste Mouthrinse alone Treatment dropouts No Evidence Yet N/A
Children aged ≤14 years Fluoride toothpaste + any TFT Toothpaste alone Treatment dropouts No Evidence Yet N/A
Children aged ≤14 years Fluoride varnish + toothpaste Toothpaste alone Treatment dropouts No Evidence Yet N/A
Children aged ≤14 years Fluoride varnish + toothpaste Toothpaste alone Caries increment (D(M)FS PF) No Evidence Yet N/A
CD002782
Current Version: CD002782
Current Evidence Gaps 9 gaps
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Downgrade Reason
Children Fluoride gel Placebo/no treatment D(M)FS prevented fraction No Evidence Yet N/A
Children Fluoride mouthrinse Placebo/no treatment D(M)FS prevented fraction No Evidence Yet N/A
Children Fluoride toothpaste Placebo/no treatment D(M)FS prevented fraction No Evidence Yet N/A
Children Fluoride varnish Placebo/no treatment D(M)FS prevented fraction No Evidence Yet N/A
Children Topical fluorides Placebo/no treatment D(M)FS prevented fraction No Evidence Yet N/A
Children Topical fluorides No treatment Treatment unacceptability (dropouts) No Evidence Yet N/A
Children Topical fluorides Placebo/no treatment Proportion developing new caries No Evidence Yet N/A
Children Topical fluorides Placebo/no treatment d(e/m)fs prevented fraction No Evidence Yet N/A
Children Topical fluorides Placebo/no treatment D(M)FT prevented fraction No Evidence Yet N/A
CD003067
Current Version: CD003067.PUB5 | 3 older versions
Current Evidence Gaps 3 gaps
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Downgrade Reason
children and adolescents glass ionomer or resin‐modified glass ionomer sealant applications on occlusal tooth surfaces of permanent first molars fluoride varnish applications on occlusal tooth surfaces of permanent first molars Dentine caries in permanent molars Very Low Not specified
children and adolescents resin based fissure sealant applications on occlusal tooth surfaces of permanent first molars fluoride varnish applications on occlusal tooth surfaces of permanent first molars Dentine caries in permanent molars Very Low Not specified
children and adolescents at school in Germany resin based fissure sealant + fluoride varnish applications on occlusal tooth surfaces of permanent first molars fluoride varnish applications to occlusal tooth surfaces of permanent first molars Dentine caries in permanent molars Very Low Not specified
Previous Versions
CD003067.PUB4
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Studies
children and adolescents resin-based fissure sealant applications on occlusal tooth surfaces of permanent first molars fluoride varnish applications on occlusal tooth surfaces of permanent first molars Dentine caries in permanent molars (Follow up: 2 years) Low -
children and adolescents resin-based fissure sealant together with fluoride varnish applications on occlusal tooth surfaces of permanent first molars fluoride varnish applications to occlusal tooth surfaces of permanent first molars Dentine caries in permanent molars (Follow up: 2 years) Low -
children and adolescents glass ionomer or resin-modified glass ionomer sealant applications on occlusal tooth surfaces of permanent first molars fluoride varnish applications on occlusal tooth surfaces of permanent first molars Dentine caries in permanent molars (Follow up: 1, 2 and 3 years) Very Low -
CD003067.PUB3
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Studies
Children 5-9 years (Bravo 2005) Resin sealant Fluoride varnish Caries incidence at 4 years No Evidence Yet -
Children 5-9 years (Bravo 2005) Resin sealant Fluoride varnish Caries incidence at 9 years No Evidence Yet -
Children 5-9 years (Florio 2001) Resin-modified glass ionomer sealant Fluoride varnish Caries incidence at 12 months No Evidence Yet -
Children 5-9 years (Raadal 1984) Autopolymerised resin sealant Fluoride varnish Caries incidence at 23 months No Evidence Yet -
Children 5-9 years (Splieth 2001) Sealant plus fluoride varnish Fluoride varnish alone Caries incidence at 24 months No Evidence Yet -
CD003067.PUB2
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Studies
Children 5-9 years old Autopolymerized resin sealant Fluoride varnish Caries incidence at 23 months No Evidence Yet -
Children 5-9 years old Resin-modified glass ionomer sealant Fluoride varnish Caries incidence at 12 months No Evidence Yet -
Children 5-9 years old Resin sealant Fluoride varnish Caries incidence at 9 years No Evidence Yet -
Children 5-9 years old Sealant plus fluoride varnish Fluoride varnish alone Caries incidence at 24 months No Evidence Yet -
CD003069
Current Version: CD003069.PUB4 | 3 older versions
Current Evidence Gaps 17 gaps
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Downgrade Reason
Elderly patients with implants Powered toothbrush Manual toothbrush Modified plaque index No Evidence Yet N/A
Partially edentulous patients AmF/SnF2 mouthwash Chlorhexidine mouthwash Implant failure No Evidence Yet N/A
Partially edentulous patients AmF/SnF2 mouthwash Chlorhexidine mouthwash Patient satisfaction No Evidence Yet N/A
Partially edentulous patients AmF/SnF2 mouthwash Chlorhexidine mouthwash Change in taste No Evidence Yet N/A
Patients with implants Chlorhexidine irrigation Chlorhexidine mouthwash Marginal bleeding No Evidence Yet N/A
Patients with implants Chlorhexidine irrigation Chlorhexidine mouthwash Turesky plaque index No Evidence Yet N/A
Patients with implants Mechanical debridement + minocycline Mechanical debridement + CHX gel Probing pocket depth change No Evidence Yet N/A
Patients with implants Sonic toothbrush Manual toothbrush Plaque index No Evidence Yet N/A
Patients with implants Sonic toothbrush Manual toothbrush Patient satisfaction No Evidence Yet N/A
Patients with implants Titanium curettes Ultrasonic device Probing pocket depth change No Evidence Yet N/A
Patients with implants Triclosan dentifrice Fluoride dentifrice Plaque presence No Evidence Yet N/A
Patients with mandibular implants Hyaluronic gel Chlorhexidine gel Modified bleeding index No Evidence Yet N/A
Patients with mandibular implants Hyaluronic gel Chlorhexidine gel Probing pocket depth change No Evidence Yet N/A
Patients with mandibular implants Hyaluronic gel Chlorhexidine gel Modified plaque index No Evidence Yet N/A
Patients with restored implants Listerine Placebo mouthwash Turesky plaque index No Evidence Yet N/A
Patients with restored implants Listerine Placebo mouthwash Probing pocket depth No Evidence Yet N/A
Patients with restored implants Listerine Placebo mouthwash Marginal bleeding No Evidence Yet N/A
Previous Versions
CD003069.PUB3
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Studies
Dental implant patients AmF/SnF2 mouthrinse Chlorhexidine mouthrinse Desire for future use No Evidence Yet -
Dental implant patients AmF/SnF2 mouthrinse Chlorhexidine mouthrinse Change in taste No Evidence Yet -
Dental implant patients Chlorhexidine irrigation Chlorhexidine mouthwash Plaque scores No Evidence Yet -
Dental implant patients Chlorhexidine irrigation Chlorhexidine mouthwash Marginal bleeding index No Evidence Yet -
Dental implant patients Listerine mouthwash Placebo mouthwash Marginal bleeding No Evidence Yet -
Dental implant patients Listerine mouthwash Placebo mouthwash Probing pocket depth No Evidence Yet -
Dental implant patients Listerine mouthwash Placebo mouthwash Plaque index No Evidence Yet -
Dental implant patients Sonic toothbrush Manual toothbrush Patient liking No Evidence Yet -
CD003069.PUB2
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Studies
Adults with dental implants Chlorhexidine irrigation Chlorhexidine mouthwash Marginal bleeding index No Evidence Yet -
Adults with dental implants Chlorhexidine irrigation Chlorhexidine mouthwash Plaque scores No Evidence Yet -
Adults with dental implants Listerine mouthwash Placebo mouthwash Marginal bleeding No Evidence Yet -
Adults with dental implants Listerine mouthwash Placebo mouthwash Probing pocket depth No Evidence Yet -
Adults with dental implants Listerine mouthwash Placebo mouthwash Plaque No Evidence Yet -
Adults with dental implants Phosphoric etching gel Mechanical debridement Pain No Evidence Yet -
Adults with dental implants Powered toothbrushing Manual toothbrushing Plaque scores No Evidence Yet -
Adults with dental implants Sonic toothbrushing Manual toothbrushing Difficulty in toothbrushing No Evidence Yet -
CD003069
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Studies
Adults with dental implants Chlorhexidine irrigation Chlorhexidine mouthwash Marginal bleeding No Evidence Yet -
Adults with dental implants Chlorhexidine irrigation Chlorhexidine mouthwash Plaque scores No Evidence Yet -
Adults with dental implants Listerine mouthwash Placebo mouthwash Plaque No Evidence Yet -
Adults with dental implants Listerine mouthwash Placebo mouthwash Probing pocket depth No Evidence Yet -
Adults with dental implants Listerine mouthwash Placebo mouthwash Marginal bleeding No Evidence Yet -
Adults with dental implants Phosphoric etching gel Mechanical debridement Pain No Evidence Yet -
Adults with dental implants Powered toothbrushing Manual toothbrushing Plaque scores No Evidence Yet -
Adults with dental implants Sonic toothbrushing Manual toothbrushing Difficulty in toothbrushing No Evidence Yet -
CD003220
Current Version: CD003220.PUB3 | 2 older versions
Current Evidence Gaps 35 gaps
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Downgrade Reason
children with extensive decay in primary teeth 3Mix 3Mixtatin Clinical failure (at six, 12 and 24 months) Low Not specified
children with extensive decay in primary teeth 3Mixtatin simvastatin (favouring 3Mixtatin) Clinical failure (at six, 12 and 24 months) Low Not specified
children with extensive decay in primary teeth ABS ferric sulphate Radiological failure (at six, 12 and 24 months) Low Not specified
children with extensive decay in primary teeth Biodentine MTA Radiological failure (at six, 12 and 24 months) Low Not specified
children with extensive decay in primary teeth Biodentine MTA Clinical failure (at six, 12 and 24 months) Low Not specified
children with extensive decay in primary teeth calcium hydroxide formocresol (favouring formocresol) Radiological failure (at six, 12 and 24 months) Low Not specified
children with extensive decay in primary teeth calcium hydroxide formocresol (favouring formocrescol) Clinical failure (at six, 12 and 24 months) Low Not specified
children with extensive decay in primary teeth calcium hydroxide ZOE Radiological failure Low Not specified
children with extensive decay in primary teeth calcium hydroxide ferric sulphate (favouring ferric sulphate) Radiological failure (at six, 12 and 24 months) Low Not specified
children with extensive decay in primary teeth calcium hydroxide ferric sulphate Clinical failure (at six, 12 and 24 months) Low Not specified
children with extensive decay in primary teeth electrosurgery ferric sulphate Radiological failure (at six, 12 and 24 months) Low Not specified
children with extensive decay in primary teeth electrosurgery ferric sulphate Clinical failure (at six, 12 and 24 months) Low Not specified
children with extensive decay in primary teeth ferric sulphate formocresol Radiological failure (at six, 12 and 24 months) Low Not specified
children with extensive decay in primary teeth ferric sulphate formocresol Clinical failure (at six, 12 and 24 months) Low Not specified
children with extensive decay in primary teeth laser ferric sulphate Radiological failure (at six, 12 and 24 months) Low Not specified
children with extensive decay in primary teeth laser ferric sulphate Clinical failure (at six, 12 and 24 months) Low Not specified
children with extensive decay in primary teeth laser electrosurgery Radiological failure (at six, 12 and 24 months) Low Not specified
children with extensive decay in primary teeth MTA ferric sulphate Radiological failure (at six, 12 and 24 months) Low Not specified
children with extensive decay in primary teeth MTA calcium hydroxide Radiological failure (12 months) Low Not specified
children with extensive decay in primary teeth MTA simvastatin (favouring MTA) Clinical failure (at six, 12 and 24 months) Low Not specified
children with extensive decay in primary teeth MTA 3Mix Clinical failure (at six, 12 and 24 months) Low Not specified
children with extensive decay in primary teeth NaOCl ferric sulphate Radiological failure (at six, 12 and 24 months) Low Not specified
children with extensive decay in primary teeth Vitapex ZOE (favouring ZOE) Radiological failure Low Not specified
children with extensive decay in primary teeth Vitapex ZOE (favouring ZOE) Clinical failure Low Not specified
children with extensive decay in primary teeth calcium hydroxide formocresol Radiological failure (12 months) Moderate Not specified
children with extensive decay in primary teeth calcium hydroxide formocresol Clinical failure (12 months) Moderate Not specified
children with extensive decay in primary teeth Endoflas ZOE Radiological failure (6 months) Moderate Not specified
children with extensive decay in primary teeth Endoflas ZOE Clinical failure (6 months) Moderate Not specified
children with extensive decay in primary teeth Metapex ZOE Radiological failure (12 months) Moderate Not specified
children with extensive decay in primary teeth Metapex ZOE Clinical failure (12 months) Moderate Not specified
children with extensive decay in primary teeth MTA formocresol Clinical failure (12 months) Moderate Not specified
children with extensive decay in primary teeth MTA formocresol Radiological failure (12 months) Moderate Not specified
children with extensive decay in primary teeth MTA calcium hydroxide Clinical failure (12 months) Moderate Not specified
children with extensive decay in primary teeth acetone based total etch adhesive calcium hydroxide clinical or radiological failures (0) No Evidence Yet N/A
children with extensive decay in primary teeth MTA calcium hydroxide clinical or radiological failures (0) No Evidence Yet N/A
children with extensive decay in primary teeth nan nan nan No Evidence Yet N/A
children with extensive decay in primary teeth nan nan Radiological failure (at six, 12 and 24 months) No Evidence Yet N/A
children with extensive decay in primary teeth ABS ferric sulphate Clinical failure (at six, 12 and 24 months) Very Low Not specified
children with extensive decay in primary teeth all other comparisons all other comparisons Radiological failure (at six, 12 and 24 months) Very Low Not specified
children with extensive decay in primary teeth all other comparisons all other comparisons Radiological failure (at six, 12 and 24 months) Very Low Not specified
children with extensive decay in primary teeth EMD formocresol Clinical failure (at six, 12 and 24 months) Very Low Not specified
children with extensive decay in primary teeth laser electrosurgery Clinical failure (at six, 12 and 24 months) Very Low Not specified
children with extensive decay in primary teeth MTA ferric sulphate Clinical failure (at six, 12 and 24 months) Very Low Not specified
children with extensive decay in primary teeth NaOCl ferric sulphate Clinical failure (at six, 12 and 24 months) Very Low Not specified
Previous Versions
CD003220.PUB2
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Studies
children with extensive decay in primary teeth direct pulp capping with 1 type of medicament direct pulp capping using alternative medicament Radiological failure (at 6, 12 and 24 months) No Evidence Yet -
children with extensive decay in primary teeth direct pulp capping with 1 type of medicament direct pulp capping using alternative medicament Clinical failure (at 6, 12 and 24 months) No Evidence Yet -
children with extensive decay in primary teeth pulpectomy with 1 type of medicament pulpectomy using alternative medicament Radiological failure (at 6, 12 and 24 months) No Evidence Yet -
children with extensive decay in primary teeth pulpectomy with 1 type of medicament pulpectomy using alternative medicament Clinical failure (at 6, 12 and 24 months) No Evidence Yet -
children with extensive decay in primary teeth pulpotomy with 1 type of medicament pulpotomy using alternative medicament or different technique Clinical failure (at 6, 12 and 24 months) No Evidence Yet -
children with extensive decay in primary teeth pulpotomy with 1 type of medicament pulpotomy using alternative medicament or different technique Radiological failure (at 6, 12 and 24 months) No Evidence Yet -
CD003220
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Studies
Children with cariously exposed primary molars Electrosurgical pulpotomy Formocresol pulpotomy Clinical failure at 12+ months No Evidence Yet -
Children with cariously exposed primary molars Electrosurgical pulpotomy Formocresol pulpotomy Radiographic failure No Evidence Yet -
Children with cariously exposed primary molars Ferric sulphate pulpotomy ZOE pulpectomy Extraction rate at 2 years No Evidence Yet -
Children with cariously exposed primary molars Ferric sulphate pulpotomy Formocresol pulpotomy Radiographic failure at 20 months No Evidence Yet -
Children with cariously exposed primary molars Ferric sulphate pulpotomy Formocresol pulpotomy Clinical failure at 20 months No Evidence Yet -
CD003315
Current Version: CD003315.PUB3 | 1 older version
Current Evidence Gaps 8 gaps
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Downgrade Reason
Babies with cleft lip/palate Maxillary plate No plate Head circumference No Evidence Yet N/A
Babies with cleft lip/palate Maxillary plate No plate Length No Evidence Yet N/A
Babies with cleft lip/palate Maxillary plate No plate Weight at 6 months No Evidence Yet N/A
Babies with cleft lip/palate Squeezable bottle Rigid bottle Length No Evidence Yet N/A
Babies with cleft lip/palate Squeezable bottle Rigid bottle Head circumference No Evidence Yet N/A
Babies with cleft lip/palate Squeezable bottle Rigid bottle Weight No Evidence Yet N/A
Babies with cleft lip post-surgery Breastfeeding Spoon-feeding Hospital cost (Indian rupees) No Evidence Yet N/A
Babies with cleft lip post-surgery Breastfeeding Spoon-feeding Weight at 6 weeks post-surgery No Evidence Yet N/A
Previous Versions
CD003315.PUB2
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Studies
Babies with cleft lips post-surgery Breastfeeding Spoon-feeding Duration of hospital stay No Evidence Yet -
Babies with cleft lips post-surgery Breastfeeding Spoon-feeding Weight at 6 weeks post-surgery No Evidence Yet -
Babies with clefts Squeezable bottle Rigid bottle Weight No Evidence Yet -
Babies with clefts Squeezable bottle Rigid bottle Height No Evidence Yet -
Babies with clefts Squeezable bottle Rigid bottle Head circumference >6 months No Evidence Yet -
Babies with unilateral cleft Maxillary plate No plate Length No Evidence Yet -
Babies with unilateral cleft Maxillary plate No plate Weight at 6 months No Evidence Yet -
CD003450
Current Version: CD003450
Current Evidence Gaps 2 gaps
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Downgrade Reason
Adults with Class II fillings in premolar and molar teeth Ceramic inlays Gold inlays Postoperative sensitivity No Evidence Yet N/A
Adults with Class II fillings in premolar and molar teeth Ceramic inlays Gold inlays Failure rate at 5 years No Evidence Yet N/A
CD003451
Current Version: CD003451.PUB3 | 1 older version
Current Evidence Gaps 14 gaps
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Downgrade Reason
children with prominent lower front teeth facemask (Alt-RAMEC) facemask (RME) ANB Low Not specified
children with prominent lower front teeth facemask only facemask (RME) Overjet Low Not specified
children with prominent lower front teeth facemask only facemask (RME) ANB Low Not specified
children with prominent lower front teeth facemask (RME) or modified facemask surgical orthodontic treatment ANB Low Not specified
children with prominent lower front teeth non-surgical orthodontic treatment no treatment Perceived need for surgery in adulthood Low Not specified
children with prominent lower front teeth surgical orthodontic treatment no treatment ANB Low Not specified
children with prominent lower front teeth surgical orthodontic treatment no treatment Overjet Low Not specified
children with prominent lower front teeth non-surgical orthodontic treatment no treatment ANB Moderate Not specified
children with prominent lower front teeth non-surgical orthodontic treatment no treatment Overjet Moderate Not specified
children with prominent lower front teeth facemask (Alt-RAMEC) facemask (RME) Overjet No Evidence Yet N/A
children with prominent lower front teeth facemask (RME) or modified facemask other orthodontic treatments Perceived need for surgery in adulthood No Evidence Yet N/A
children with prominent lower front teeth facemask (RME) or modified facemask surgical orthodontic treatment Perceived need for surgery in adulthood No Evidence Yet N/A
children with prominent lower front teeth surgical orthodontic treatment no treatment Perceived need for surgery in adulthood No Evidence Yet N/A
children with prominent lower front teeth facemask (RME) or modified facemask other orthodontic treatments Overjet Very Low Not specified
children with prominent lower front teeth facemask (RME) or modified facemask other orthodontic treatments ANB Very Low Not specified
children with prominent lower front teeth facemask (RME) or modified facemask surgical orthodontic treatment Overjet Very Low Not specified
Previous Versions
CD003451.PUB2
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Studies
children with prominent lower front teeth facemask no treatment ANB - 1 year follow-up Low -
children with prominent lower front teeth facemask no treatment Overjet - 1 year treatment (at end of treatment) Moderate -
children with prominent lower front teeth facemask no treatment Overjet - 1 year treatment (mean 2 years post-treatment) Moderate -
children with prominent lower front teeth facemask no treatment ANB - 3-year follow-up Moderate -
children with prominent lower front teeth chin cup (300 g, 600 g or 480 to 500 g) no treatment ANB - 1 year follow-up Very Low -
children with prominent lower front teeth Tandem traction bow appliance no treatment ANB at end of 1 year of treatment Very Low -
children with prominent lower front teeth Tandem traction bow appliance no treatment Overjet at end of 1 year of treatment Very Low -
CD003452
Current Version: CD003452.PUB4 | 2 older versions
Current Evidence Gaps 16 gaps
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Downgrade Reason
Adolescents (age between 12 and 16 years) receiving orthodontic treatment to correct prominent upper front teeth Different types of appliances Twin Block ANB (°) Low Not specified
Adolescents (age between 12 and 16 years) receiving orthodontic treatment to correct prominent upper front teeth Different types of appliances Twin Block Overjet (mm) Low Not specified
Adolescents (age between 12 and 16 years) receiving orthodontic treatment to correct prominent upper front teeth Late treatment in adolescence with different types of fixed functional appliances No treatment Overjet (mm) Low Not specified
Adolescents (age between 12 and 16 years) receiving orthodontic treatment to correct prominent upper front teeth Late treatment in adolescence with different types of fixed functional appliances No treatment ANB (°) Low Not specified
Adolescents (age between 12 and 16 years) receiving orthodontic treatment to correct prominent upper front teeth Late treatment in adolescence with different types of removable functional appliances No treatment ANB (°) Low Not specified
Adolescents (age between 12 and 16 years) receiving orthodontic treatment to correct prominent upper front teeth Late treatment in adolescence with different types of removable functional appliances No treatment Overjet (mm) Low Not specified
Adolescents (age between 12 and 16 years) receiving orthodontic treatment to correct prominent upper front teeth Removable functional appliance Fixed functional appliance Overjet (mm) Low Not specified
Adolescents (age between 12 and 16 years) receiving orthodontic treatment to correct prominent upper front teeth Removable functional appliance Fixed functional appliance ANB (°) Low Not specified
Children and/or adolescents (age ≤ 16 years) receiving orthodontic treatment to correct prominent upper front teeth Early treatment with functional appliance Late treatment with functional appliance Overjet (mm) Low Not specified
Children and/or adolescents (age ≤ 16 years) receiving orthodontic treatment to correct prominent upper front teeth Early treatment with headgear Late treatment with headgear Overjet (mm) Low Not specified
Children and/or adolescents (age ≤ 16 years) receiving orthodontic treatment to correct prominent upper front teeth Early treatment with headgear Late treatment with headgear Incidence of incisal trauma Low Not specified
Children and/or adolescents (age ≤ 16 years) receiving orthodontic treatment to correct prominent upper front teeth Early treatment with headgear Late treatment with headgear ANB (°) Low Not specified
Children and/or adolescents (age ≤ 16 years) receiving orthodontic treatment to correct prominent upper front teeth Early treatment with functional appliance Late treatment with functional appliance ANB (°) Moderate Not specified
Children and/or adolescents (age ≤ 16 years) receiving orthodontic treatment to correct prominent upper front teeth Early treatment with functional appliance Late treatment with functional appliance Incidence of incisal trauma Moderate Not specified
Adolescents (age between 12 and 16 years) receiving orthodontic treatment to correct prominent upper front teeth Different types of appliances Twin Block Incidence of Incisal trauma No Evidence Yet N/A
Adolescents (age between 12 and 16 years) receiving orthodontic treatment to correct prominent upper front teeth Late treatment in adolescence with different types of fixed functional appliances No treatment Incidence of incisal trauma No Evidence Yet N/A
Adolescents (age between 12 and 16 years) receiving orthodontic treatment to correct prominent upper front teeth Late treatment in adolescence with different types of removable functional appliances No treatment Incidence of incisal trauma No Evidence Yet N/A
Adolescents (age between 12 and 16 years) receiving orthodontic treatment to correct prominent upper front teeth Removable functional appliance Fixed functional appliance Incidence of Incisal trauma No Evidence Yet N/A
Previous Versions
CD003452.PUB3
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Studies
Children and/or adolescents (age < 16 years) receiving orthodontic treatment to correct prominent upper front teeth Early (2-phase) intervention with functional appliance Adolescent (1-phase) treatment with functional appliance Overjet (mm) Low -
Children and/or adolescents (age < 16 years) receiving orthodontic treatment to correct prominent upper front teeth Early (2-phase) intervention with headgear Adolescent (1-phase) treatment with headgear Incidence of incisal trauma Low -
Children and/or adolescents (age < 16 years) receiving orthodontic treatment to correct prominent upper front teeth Early (2-phase) intervention with headgear Adolescent (1-phase) treatment with headgear Overjet (mm) Low -
Children and/or adolescents (age < 16 years) receiving orthodontic treatment to correct prominent upper front teeth Early (2-phase) intervention with functional appliance Adolescent (1-phase) treatment with functional appliance Incidence of incisal trauma Moderate -
Children and/or adolescents (age < 16 years) receiving orthodontic treatment to correct prominent upper front teeth Early (2-phase) intervention with functional appliance Adolescent (1-phase) treatment with functional appliance Harms No Evidence Yet -
Children and/or adolescents (age < 16 years) receiving orthodontic treatment to correct prominent upper front teeth Early (2-phase) intervention with headgear Adolescent (1-phase) treatment with headgear Harms No Evidence Yet -
CD003452.PUB2
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Studies
Children with Class II Division 1 malocclusion Early functional appliance Untreated control Final ANB No Evidence Yet -
Children with Class II Division 1 malocclusion Early functional appliance Untreated control Final overjet No Evidence Yet -
Children with Class II Division 1 malocclusion Early functional appliance Untreated control PAR score No Evidence Yet -
Children with Class II Division 1 malocclusion Early functional appliance Untreated control Change in ANB No Evidence Yet -
Children with Class II Division 1 malocclusion Early headgear Untreated control Final ANB No Evidence Yet -
Children with Class II Division 1 malocclusion Early headgear Untreated control Final overjet No Evidence Yet -
Children with Class II Division 1 malocclusion One-phase functional appliance (adolescent) Untreated control ANB No Evidence Yet -
Children with Class II Division 1 malocclusion One-phase functional appliance (adolescent) Untreated control Overjet No Evidence Yet -
Children with Class II Division 1 malocclusion Twin Block functional appliance Other functional appliances ANB No Evidence Yet -
CD003453
Current Version: CD003453.PUB2
Current Evidence Gaps 16 gaps
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Downgrade Reason
children or adolescents, or both (age ≤ 16 years) having treatment to prevent or correct dental crowding Lower lingual arch No active treatment Amount of crowding No Evidence Yet N/A
children or adolescents (age ≤ 16 years) having treatment to prevent or correct dental crowding Eruption guidance appliance (EGA) No active treatment Number of children with crowding after 1 year Very Low Not specified
children or adolescents (age ≤ 16 years) having treatment to prevent or correct dental crowding Extraction of deciduous canines No active treatment Change in the amount of crowding at 1-2 years Very Low Not specified
children or adolescents (age ≤ 16 years) having treatment to prevent or correct dental crowding Extraction of wisdom teeth No active treatment Change in the amount of crowding at 5 years Very Low Not specified
children or adolescents (age ≤ 16 years) having treatment to prevent or correct dental crowding Schwarz appliance No active treatment Change in the amount of crowding at 9 months (after 6 months treatment) Very Low Not specified
children or adolescents, or both (age ≤ 16 years) having treatment to prevent or correct dental crowding Cervical pull headgear Minor interceptive procedures Amount of crowding at 2 years Very Low Not specified
children or adolescents, or both (age ≤ 16 years) having treatment to prevent or correct dental crowding Coaxial nickel-titanium archwire Nickel-titanium archwire Amount of tooth movement at 12 weeks Very Low Not specified
children or adolescents, or both (age ≤ 16 years) having treatment to prevent or correct dental crowding Copper nickel-titanium archwire Nickel-titanium archwire Amount of crowding at 12 weeks Very Low Not specified
children or adolescents, or both (age ≤ 16 years) having treatment to prevent or correct dental crowding Lacebacks and fixed appliances Fixed appliances only Change in the amount of crowding at 6 months Very Low Not specified
children or adolescents, or both (age ≤ 16 years) having treatment to prevent or correct dental crowding Lower lip bumper No active treatment Change in the amount of crowding at 6 months Very Low Not specified
children or adolescents, or both (age ≤ 16 years) having treatment to prevent or correct dental crowding Multistranded stainless steel archwire Stainless steel archwire Change in the amount of crowding at 8 weeks Very Low Not specified
children or adolescents, or both (age ≤ 16 years) having treatment to prevent or correct dental crowding Nickel-titanium archwire Stainless steel archwire Change in the amount of crowding at 8 weeks Very Low Not specified
children or adolescents, or both (age ≤ 16 years) having treatment to prevent or correct dental crowding Nickel-titanium archwire Multistranded stainless steel archwire Change in the amount of crowding at 8 weeks Very Low Not specified
children or adolescents, or both (age ≤ 16 years) having treatment to prevent or correct dental crowding Self-ligating brackets Conventional brackets Amount of crowding at 10 weeks Very Low Not specified
children or adolescents, or both (age ≤ 16 years) having treatment to prevent or correct dental crowding Titanol Nitinol Change in the amount of crowding up to 37 weeks Very Low Not specified
children or adolescents, or both (age ≤ 16 years) having treatment to prevent or correct dental crowding Vibrational appliances with fixed appliances Fixed appliances only Change in the amount of crowding at 10 to 30 weeks Very Low Not specified
CD003603
Current Version: CD003603.PUB3 | 2 older versions
Current Evidence Gaps 1 gap
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Downgrade Reason
people requiring dental implants HBO no HBO Prosthetic failure Very Low Not specified
Previous Versions
CD003603.PUB2
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Studies
Edentulous patients with head and neck cancer history Hyperbaric oxygen therapy + implants Implants alone Patient satisfaction No Evidence Yet -
Edentulous patients with head and neck cancer history Hyperbaric oxygen therapy + implants Implants alone Postoperative complications No Evidence Yet -
Edentulous patients with head and neck cancer history Hyperbaric oxygen therapy + implants Implants alone Implant failures No Evidence Yet -
CD003603
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Studies
nan nan nan nan No Evidence Yet -
CD003604
Current Version: CD003604
Current Evidence Gaps 9 gaps
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Downgrade Reason
Patients with dentures Implant retained overdenture (IRO) Preprosthetic surgery (PPS) Altered sensation of lower lip and chin at 1 year No Evidence Yet N/A
Patients with dentures Implant retained overdenture (IRO) Preprosthetic surgery (PPS) Dissatisfied with speech with denture at 1 year No Evidence Yet N/A
Patients with dentures Implant retained overdenture (IRO) Preprosthetic surgery (PPS) Dissatisfied with eating with denture at 1 year No Evidence Yet N/A
Patients with dentures Implant retained overdenture (IRO) Preprosthetic surgery (PPS) Dissatisfied with retention of denture at 1 year No Evidence Yet N/A
Patients with dentures Implant retained overdenture (IRO) Preprosthetic surgery (PPS) Dissatisfied with appearance of denture at 1 year No Evidence Yet N/A
Patients with dentures Implant retained overdenture (IRO) Preprosthetic surgery (PPS) Dissatisfied with lower denture at 1 year No Evidence Yet N/A
Patients with dentures Implant retained overdenture (IRO) Preprosthetic surgery (PPS) Patient satisfaction at 5 years No Evidence Yet N/A
Patients with dentures Implant retained overdenture (IRO) Preprosthetic surgery (PPS) Patient satisfaction at 1 year No Evidence Yet N/A
Patients with dentures Implant retained overdenture (IRO) Preprosthetic surgery (PPS) Altered sensation of lower lip and chin at 5 years No Evidence Yet N/A
CD003607
Current Version: CD003607.PUB4 | 3 older versions
Current Evidence Gaps 9 gaps
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Downgrade Reason
Atrophic mandibles (6-12mm height) Short implants (8-11mm) Vertical augmentation with iliac bone graft + longer implants Complications No Evidence Yet N/A
Atrophic mandibles (6-12mm height) Short implants (8-11mm) Vertical augmentation with iliac bone graft + longer implants Serious pain >1 week No Evidence Yet N/A
Atrophic mandibles (6-12mm height) Short implants (8-11mm) Vertical augmentation with iliac bone graft + longer implants Implant failure No Evidence Yet N/A
Atrophic mandibles (7-8mm height) Short implants (7mm) Vertical augmentation with Bio-Oss + longer implants Implant failure No Evidence Yet N/A
Posterior mandibles Autogenous bone blocks Bio-Oss blocks Vertical bone gain (mm) No Evidence Yet N/A
Posterior mandibles Distraction osteogenesis Onlay bone grafts Perimplant bone loss at 3 years (mm) No Evidence Yet N/A
Posterior mandibles Distraction osteogenesis Inlay bone grafts Vertical bone gain (mm) No Evidence Yet N/A
Posterior mandibles Inlay grafts Onlay grafts Vertical bone gain (mm) No Evidence Yet N/A
Posterior mandibles Resorbable barriers Non-resorbable barriers Vertical bone gain (mm) No Evidence Yet N/A
Previous Versions
CD003607.PUB3
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Studies
Patients requiring vertical augmentation Distraction osteogenesis GBR with barriers Implant failure No Evidence Yet -
Patients requiring vertical augmentation Distraction osteogenesis Onlay bone grafts Implant failure No Evidence Yet -
Patients with atrophic mandibles (6-12mm height) Short implants (8-11mm) Interposed iliac bone grafts with longer implants Serious pain >1 week No Evidence Yet -
Patients with atrophic mandibles (6-12mm height) Short implants (8-11mm) Interposed iliac bone grafts with longer implants No improvement in facial appearance No Evidence Yet -
Patients with atrophic maxillary sinuses Autogenous bone Bio-Oss + autogenous bone mix Implant failure No Evidence Yet -
Patients with atrophic maxillary sinuses One-stage sinus lift Two-stage sinus lift Implant failure No Evidence Yet -
Patients with horizontal maxillary defects Bio-Oss + barrier Autogenous bone block Implant failure No Evidence Yet -
Patients with implant dehiscences Resorbable barrier Non-resorbable barrier Implant failure No Evidence Yet -
Patients with implant dehiscences rhBMP-2 + Bio-Oss + barrier Placebo + Bio-Oss + barrier Defect height reduction (mm) No Evidence Yet -
Patients with implant fenestrations Non-resorbable barrier No barrier Bone gain percentage No Evidence Yet -
Patients with maxillary extraction sockets Barrier + Bio-Oss Barrier alone Soft tissue margin position (mm) No Evidence Yet -
CD003607.PUB2
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Studies
Patients with atrophic mandibles (6-12mm height) Short implants (8-11mm) Augmentation with iliac bone graft + long implants Serious pain >1 week No Evidence Yet -
Patients with atrophic mandibles (6-12mm height) Short implants (8-11mm) Augmentation with iliac bone graft + long implants No improvement in facial appearance No Evidence Yet -
Patients with atrophic mandibles (6-12mm height) Short implants (8-11mm) Augmentation with iliac bone graft + long implants Implant failure No Evidence Yet -
Patients with atrophic sinuses Autogenous bone 80% Bio-Oss + 20% autogenous bone Implant failure No Evidence Yet -
Patients with atrophic sinuses One-stage sinus lift with bone blocks Two-stage sinus lift with particulated bone Implant failure No Evidence Yet -
Patients with bone defects rhBMP-2 + Bio-Oss + barrier Placebo + Bio-Oss + barrier Defect height reduction No Evidence Yet -
Patients with extraction sockets Resorbable barrier + Bio-Oss Resorbable barrier alone Soft tissue margin position No Evidence Yet -
Patients with implant fenestrations Non-resorbable barrier No barrier Percent bone gain No Evidence Yet -
CD003607
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Studies
Adults requiring bone regeneration GBR with non-resorbable barrier No barrier Percent bone gain No Evidence Yet -
Adults requiring bone regeneration Onlay bone graft with barrier Onlay bone graft without barrier Membrane exposure No Evidence Yet -
Adults requiring bone regeneration Resorbable collagen membrane Non-resorbable barrier Implant failure No Evidence Yet -
Adults requiring bone regeneration Resorbable membrane over xenograft Non-resorbable membrane over xenograft Infection rate No Evidence Yet -
CD003782
Current Version: CD003782.PUB3 | 1 older version
Current Evidence Gaps 4 gaps
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Downgrade Reason
Adults with radiation-induced salivary gland dysfunction Pilocarpine 10mg TID Placebo Xerostomia response (>25mm VAS change) No Evidence Yet N/A
Adults with radiation-induced salivary gland dysfunction Pilocarpine 5mg TID Placebo Xerostomia response (>25mm VAS change) No Evidence Yet N/A
Adults with radiation-induced salivary gland dysfunction Pilocarpine mouthwash Artificial saliva Xerostomia (VAS improvement) No Evidence Yet N/A
Adults with radiation-induced salivary gland dysfunction Pilocarpine (titrated) Placebo Xerostomia response (>25mm VAS change) No Evidence Yet N/A
Previous Versions
CD003782.PUB2
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Studies
Adults with radiation-induced salivary gland dysfunction Pilocarpine (10mg tds) Placebo VAS score improvement >25mm No Evidence Yet -
Adults with radiation-induced salivary gland dysfunction Pilocarpine (5mg tds) Artificial saliva VAS score improvement No Evidence Yet -
Adults with radiation-induced salivary gland dysfunction Pilocarpine (5mg tds) Placebo VAS score improvement >25mm No Evidence Yet -
Adults with radiation-induced salivary gland dysfunction Pilocarpine (titrated dose) Placebo VAS score improvement >25mm No Evidence Yet -
CD003807
Current Version: CD003807.PUB3 | 2 older versions
Current Evidence Gaps 7 gaps
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Downgrade Reason
Cancer patients Amphotericin B Placebo/no treatment Oral candidiasis No Evidence Yet N/A
Cancer patients Drugs absorbed from GI tract Drugs not absorbed Oral candidiasis No Evidence Yet N/A
Cancer patients Drugs absorbed from GI tract Placebo/no treatment Oral candidiasis No Evidence Yet N/A
Cancer patients Drugs absorbed from GI tract Placebo/no treatment Empirical antifungal treatment No Evidence Yet N/A
Cancer patients Drugs not absorbed from GI tract Placebo/no treatment Oral candidiasis No Evidence Yet N/A
Cancer patients Drugs partially absorbed from GI tract Placebo/no treatment Oral candidiasis No Evidence Yet N/A
Cancer patients Norfloxacin + amphotericin B Amphotericin B Systemic infection No Evidence Yet N/A
Previous Versions
CD003807.PUB2
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Studies
Cancer patients Amphotericin B Placebo/no treatment Oral candidiasis No Evidence Yet -
Cancer patients Drugs absorbed from GI tract Placebo/no treatment Oral candidiasis No Evidence Yet -
Cancer patients Drugs absorbed from GI tract Drugs not absorbed Oral candidiasis No Evidence Yet -
Cancer patients Drugs absorbed from GI tract Placebo/no treatment Empirical antifungal treatment No Evidence Yet -
Cancer patients Drugs not absorbed from GI tract Placebo/no treatment Oral candidiasis No Evidence Yet -
Cancer patients Drugs partially absorbed from GI tract Placebo/no treatment Oral candidiasis No Evidence Yet -
Cancer patients Norfloxacin + amphotericin B Amphotericin B Systemic infection No Evidence Yet -
CD003807
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Studies
Cancer patients Amphotericin B Placebo/no treatment Oral candidiasis No Evidence Yet -
Cancer patients Drugs absorbed from GI tract Placebo/no treatment Oral candidiasis No Evidence Yet -
Cancer patients Drugs absorbed from GI tract Drugs not absorbed Systemic fungal infections No Evidence Yet -
Cancer patients Drugs absorbed from GI tract Placebo/no treatment Empirical antifungal treatment No Evidence Yet -
Cancer patients Drugs absorbed from GI tract Drugs not absorbed Oral candidiasis No Evidence Yet -
Cancer patients Drugs not absorbed from GI tract Placebo/no treatment Oral candidiasis No Evidence Yet -
Cancer patients Drugs partially absorbed from GI tract Placebo/no treatment Oral candidiasis No Evidence Yet -
CD003808
Current Version: CD003808.PUB3 | 1 older version
Current Evidence Gaps 2 gaps
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Downgrade Reason
Patients with carious teeth Partial caries removal Complete caries removal Signs or symptoms of pulpal disease (1 year) Low Not specified
Patients with carious teeth No dentinal caries removal Complete caries removal Failure of restorations Moderate Not specified
Patients with carious teeth No dentinal caries removal Complete caries removal Signs or symptoms of pulpal disease (1 year) Moderate Not specified
Patients with carious teeth Partial caries removal Complete caries removal Pulp exposure during caries removal Moderate Not specified
Patients with carious teeth Stepwise excavation One stage complete caries removal Pulp exposure during caries removal - Primary dentition Moderate Not specified
Patients with carious teeth Stepwise excavation One stage complete caries removal Pulp exposure during caries removal Moderate Not specified
Patients with carious teeth Stepwise excavation One stage complete caries removal Pulp exposure during caries removal - Secondary dentition Moderate Not specified
Patients with carious teeth Stepwise excavation One stage complete caries removal Signs or symptoms of pulpal disease (1 year) Moderate Not specified
Patients with carious teeth Partial caries removal Complete caries removal Failure of restorations Very Low Not specified
Previous Versions
CD003808.PUB2
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Studies
Patients with carious teeth Partial caries removal Complete caries removal Restoration longevity No Evidence Yet -
Patients with carious teeth Partial caries removal Complete caries removal Pulpal inflammation/necrosis No Evidence Yet -
Patients with carious teeth Partial caries removal (first excavation) Complete caries removal Pulpal exposure No Evidence Yet -
Patients with carious teeth Partial caries removal (second excavation) Complete caries removal Pulpal exposure No Evidence Yet -
Showing 21 to 40 of 214 review series
Summary Statistics
214
Review Series
3688
PICO Questions
Evidence Certainty
High
(%)
Moderate
(%)
Low
(%)
Very Low
(%)
No Evidence Yet
(%)
GRADE Downgrading Reasons
Risk of Bias
985 (85.8%)
Imprecision
895 (78.0%)
Inconsistency
253 (22.0%)
Indirectness
188 (16.4%)
Publication Bias
48 (4.2%)