Evidence Gaps Analysis

3688 outcomes from 214 review series
Clear
CD005293
Current Version: CD005293.PUB2
Current Evidence Gaps 6 gaps
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Downgrade Reason
Patients with altered sensation due to inferior alveolar nerve injury Low-level laser treatment (photon-plus GaA1As diode laser; Rønvig Dental, Denmark: 70 mW output, continuous wavelength of 820 nm) Placebo laser treatment Adverse events No Evidence Yet N/A
Patients with altered sensation due to inferior alveolar nerve injury Low-level laser treatment (photon-plus GaA1As diode laser; Rønvig Dental, Denmark: 70 mW output, continuous wavelength of 820 nm) Placebo laser treatment Taste No Evidence Yet N/A
Patients with altered sensation due to inferior alveolar nerve injury Low-level laser treatment (photon-plus GaA1As diode laser; Rønvig Dental, Denmark: 70 mW output, continuous wavelength of 820 nm) Placebo laser treatment Pain No Evidence Yet N/A
Patients with altered sensation due to inferior alveolar nerve injury Low-level laser treatment (photon-plus GaA1As diode laser; Rønvig Dental, Denmark: 70 mW output, continuous wavelength of 820 nm) Placebo laser treatment Difficulty eating No Evidence Yet N/A
Patients with altered sensation due to inferior alveolar nerve injury Low-level laser treatment (photon-plus GaA1As diode laser; Rønvig Dental, Denmark: 70 mW output, continuous wavelength of 820 nm) Placebo laser treatment Difficulty speaking No Evidence Yet N/A
Patients with altered sensation due to inferior alveolar nerve injury Low-level laser treatment (photon-plus GaA1As diode laser; Rønvig Dental, Denmark: 70 mW output, continuous wavelength of 820 nm) Placebo laser treatment Sensation of the chin (spontaneous or evoked - anaesthesia/paraesthesia/dysaesthesia/hyperalgesia/allodynia) Very Low Not specified
CD005296
Current Version: CD005296.PUB4 | 2 older versions
Current Evidence Gaps 6 gaps
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Downgrade Reason
people receiving endodontic treatment of permanent teeth single-visit treatment multiple-visit treatment Pain (dichotomous) - pain in the immediate postobturation period (until 72 hours postobturation) Low Not specified
people receiving endodontic treatment of permanent teeth single-visit treatment multiple-visit treatment Pain (dichotomous) - post-treatment pain (within 1 week) Moderate Not specified
people receiving endodontic treatment of permanent teeth single-visit treatment multiple-visit treatment Radiological failure Moderate Not specified
people receiving endodontic treatment of permanent teeth single-visit treatment multiple-visit treatment Tooth extraction Very Low Not specified
people receiving endodontic treatment of permanent teeth single-visit treatment multiple-visit treatment Pain (dichotomous) - postobturation pain at 1 week Very Low Not specified
people receiving endodontic treatment of permanent teeth single-visit treatment multiple-visit treatment Swelling or flare-up Very Low Not specified
people receiving endodontic treatment of permanent teeth single-visit treatment multiple-visit treatment Presence of sinus tract or fistula Very Low Not specified
people receiving endodontic treatment of permanent teeth single-visit treatment multiple-visit treatment Analgesic use Very Low Not specified
Previous Versions
CD005296.PUB3
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Studies
people receiving endodontic treatment of permanent teeth single-visit treatment multiple-visit treatment Pain (dichotomous) - pain at 1 week Low -
people receiving endodontic treatment of permanent teeth single-visit treatment multiple-visit treatment Radiological failure Low -
people receiving endodontic treatment of permanent teeth single-visit treatment multiple-visit treatment Swelling or flare-up Low -
people receiving endodontic treatment of permanent teeth single-visit treatment multiple-visit treatment Sinus track or fistula formation Low -
people receiving endodontic treatment of permanent teeth single-visit treatment multiple-visit treatment Pain (dichotomous) - pain in the immediate postoperative period (until 72 hours postobturation) Moderate -
people receiving endodontic treatment of permanent teeth single-visit treatment multiple-visit treatment Painkiller use Moderate -
people receiving endodontic treatment of permanent teeth single-visit treatment multiple-visit treatment Any complication Moderate -
people receiving endodontic treatment of permanent teeth single-visit treatment multiple-visit treatment Tooth extraction due to endodontic problems Very Low -
CD005296.PUB2
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Studies
Patients requiring root canal treatment Single visit RoCT Multiple visit RoCT Pain at 1 week No Evidence Yet -
Patients requiring root canal treatment Single visit RoCT Multiple visit RoCT Postoperative pain (72 hours) No Evidence Yet -
Patients requiring root canal treatment Single visit RoCT Multiple visit RoCT Swelling/flare-up No Evidence Yet -
Patients requiring root canal treatment Single visit RoCT Multiple visit RoCT Radiological failure No Evidence Yet -
Patients requiring root canal treatment Single visit RoCT Multiple visit RoCT Painkiller use No Evidence Yet -
Patients with necrotic teeth Single visit RoCT Multiple visit RoCT Radiological failure No Evidence Yet -
CD005511
Current Version: CD005511.PUB3 | 1 older version
Current Evidence Gaps 87 gaps
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Downgrade Reason
People requiring retreatment of periapical lesions Calcium sulphate No grafting Healing - 1 year Low Not specified
People requiring retreatment of periapical lesions Endoscope Microscope Healing at 2 years Low Not specified
People requiring retreatment of periapical lesions Endoscope Loupes Healing at 1 year Low Not specified
People requiring retreatment of periapical lesions GTR + Bovine bone No grafting Healing - 1 year Low Not specified
People requiring retreatment of periapical lesions MTA SuperEBA Healing at 1 year Low Not specified
People requiring retreatment of periapical lesions MTA IRM Healing at 1 year Low Not specified
People requiring retreatment of periapical lesions MTA IRM Prevalence of pain at 1 day Low Not specified
People requiring retreatment of periapical lesions MTA Gutta-percha Healing - 1 year Low Not specified
People requiring retreatment of periapical lesions MTA Gutta-percha Pain assessed with visual analogue scale (VAS) from 0 to 100 - 1 day Low Not specified
People requiring retreatment of periapical lesions PRGF gel No grafting Pain assessed with visual analogue scale (VAS) from 0 to 100 - 1 day Low Not specified
People requiring retreatment of periapical lesions Root-end resection (with root-end filling) Root canal retreatment Prevalence of pain - 1 day Low Not specified
People requiring retreatment of periapical lesions Ultrasonic instruments Bur Healing at 1 year Low Not specified
People requiring retreatment of periapical lesions CBCT Periapical radiography Maximum pain assessed with verbal rating scale (VRS) No Evidence Yet N/A
People requiring retreatment of periapical lesions CBCT Periapical radiography Pain assessed with visual analogue scale (VAS) from 0 to 100 - 1 day No Evidence Yet N/A
People requiring retreatment of periapical lesions CBCT Periapical radiography Occurrence of postoperative infection - 4 weeks No Evidence Yet N/A
People requiring retreatment of periapical lesions CBCT Periapical radiography Prevalence of pain - 1 day No Evidence Yet N/A
People requiring retreatment of periapical lesions CBCT Periapical radiography Height loss of interdental papilla No Evidence Yet N/A
People requiring retreatment of periapical lesions Endoscope loupes or microscope Height loss of interdental papilla No Evidence Yet N/A
People requiring retreatment of periapical lesions Endoscope loupes or microscope Maximum pain assessed with verbal rating scale (VRS) No Evidence Yet N/A
People requiring retreatment of periapical lesions Endoscope loupes or microscope Pain assessed with visual analogue scale (VAS) from 0 to 100 at 1 day No Evidence Yet N/A
People requiring retreatment of periapical lesions Endoscope loupes or microscope Prevalence of pain at 1 day No Evidence Yet N/A
People requiring retreatment of periapical lesions Endoscope loupes or microscope Occurrence of postoperative infection at 4 weeks No Evidence Yet N/A
People requiring retreatment of periapical lesions Glass ionomer cement Amalgam Occurrence of postoperative infection at 4 weeks No Evidence Yet N/A
People requiring retreatment of periapical lesions Glass ionomer cement Amalgam Height loss of interdental papilla - 1 year No Evidence Yet N/A
People requiring retreatment of periapical lesions Glass ionomer cement Amalgam Maximum pain assessed with verbal rating scale (VRS) No Evidence Yet N/A
People requiring retreatment of periapical lesions Glass ionomer cement Amalgam Pain assessed with visual analogue scale (VAS) from 0 to 100 - 1 day No Evidence Yet N/A
People requiring retreatment of periapical lesions Glass ionomer cement Amalgam Prevalence of pain at 1 day No Evidence Yet N/A
People requiring retreatment of periapical lesions grafting No grafting Maximum pain assessed with verbal rating scale (VRS) No Evidence Yet N/A
People requiring retreatment of periapical lesions grafting No grafting Height loss of interdental papilla - 1 year No Evidence Yet N/A
People requiring retreatment of periapical lesions grafting No grafting Occurrence of postoperative infection at 4 weeks No Evidence Yet N/A
People requiring retreatment of periapical lesions grafting No grafting Prevalence of pain at 1 day No Evidence Yet N/A
People requiring retreatment of periapical lesions IRM Gutta-percha Maximum pain assessed with verbal rating scale (VRS) No Evidence Yet N/A
People requiring retreatment of periapical lesions IRM Gutta-percha Pain assessed with visual analogue scale (VAS) from 0 to 100 - 1 day No Evidence Yet N/A
People requiring retreatment of periapical lesions IRM Gutta-percha Prevalence of pain at 1 day No Evidence Yet N/A
People requiring retreatment of periapical lesions IRM Gutta-percha Height loss of interdental papilla - 1 year No Evidence Yet N/A
People requiring retreatment of periapical lesions IRM Gutta-percha Occurrence of postoperative infection at 4 weeks No Evidence Yet N/A
People requiring retreatment of periapical lesions LLLT Placebo Pain assessed with visual analogue scale (VAS) from 0 to 100 - 1 day No Evidence Yet N/A
People requiring retreatment of periapical lesions LLLT Placebo Occurrence of postoperative infection at 4 weeks No Evidence Yet N/A
People requiring retreatment of periapical lesions LLLT Placebo Prevalence of pain at 1 day No Evidence Yet N/A
People requiring retreatment of periapical lesions LLLT Placebo Height loss of interdental papilla - 1 year No Evidence Yet N/A
People requiring retreatment of periapical lesions LLLT Placebo Healing - 1 year No Evidence Yet N/A
People requiring retreatment of periapical lesions MTA Gutta-percha Maximum pain assessed with verbal rating scale (VRS) No Evidence Yet N/A
People requiring retreatment of periapical lesions MTA Gutta-percha Prevalence of pain at 1 day No Evidence Yet N/A
People requiring retreatment of periapical lesions MTA Gutta-percha Occurrence of postoperative infection at 4 weeks No Evidence Yet N/A
People requiring retreatment of periapical lesions MTA Gutta-percha Height loss of interdental papilla - 1 year No Evidence Yet N/A
People requiring retreatment of periapical lesions MTA IRM Height loss of interdental papilla - 1 year No Evidence Yet N/A
People requiring retreatment of periapical lesions MTA IRM Maximum pain assessed with verbal rating scale (VRS) No Evidence Yet N/A
People requiring retreatment of periapical lesions MTA IRM Pain assessed with visual analogue scale (VAS) from 0 to 100 - 1 day No Evidence Yet N/A
People requiring retreatment of periapical lesions MTA SuperEBA Pain assessed with visual analogue scale (VAS) from 0 to 100 - 1 day No Evidence Yet N/A
People requiring retreatment of periapical lesions MTA SuperEBA Prevalence of pain at 1 day No Evidence Yet N/A
People requiring retreatment of periapical lesions MTA SuperEBA Occurrence of postoperative infection at 4 weeks No Evidence Yet N/A
People requiring retreatment of periapical lesions MTA SuperEBA Height loss of interdental papilla - 1 year No Evidence Yet N/A
People requiring retreatment of periapical lesions MTA SuperEBA Maximum pain assessed with verbal rating scale (VRS) No Evidence Yet N/A
People requiring retreatment of periapical lesions MTA IRM Occurrence of postoperative infection at 4 weeks No Evidence Yet N/A
People requiring retreatment of periapical lesions PBI Complete mobilisation Maximum pain assessed with verbal rating scale (VRS) No Evidence Yet N/A
People requiring retreatment of periapical lesions PBI Complete mobilisation Occurrence of postoperative infection at 4 weeks No Evidence Yet N/A
People requiring retreatment of periapical lesions PBI Complete mobilisation Prevalence of pain at 1 day No Evidence Yet N/A
People requiring retreatment of periapical lesions PBI Complete mobilisation Healing at 1 year No Evidence Yet N/A
People requiring retreatment of periapical lesions Preoperative antibiotic prophylaxis Placebo Maximum pain assessed with verbal rating scale (VRS) No Evidence Yet N/A
People requiring retreatment of periapical lesions Preoperative antibiotic prophylaxis Placebo Height loss of interdental papilla No Evidence Yet N/A
People requiring retreatment of periapical lesions Preoperative antibiotic prophylaxis Placebo Prevalence of pain - 1 day No Evidence Yet N/A
People requiring retreatment of periapical lesions Preoperative antibiotic prophylaxis Placebo Pain assessed with visual analogue scale (VAS) from 0 to 100 - 1 day No Evidence Yet N/A
People requiring retreatment of periapical lesions Preoperative antibiotic prophylaxis Placebo Healing - 1 year No Evidence Yet N/A
People requiring retreatment of periapical lesions Root-end resection (with root-end filling) Root canal retreatment Maximum pain assessed with verbal rating scale (VRS) No Evidence Yet N/A
People requiring retreatment of periapical lesions Root-end resection (with root-end filling) Root canal retreatment Height loss of interdental papilla No Evidence Yet N/A
People requiring retreatment of periapical lesions Root-end resection (with root-end filling) Root canal retreatment Occurrence of postoperative infection - 4 weeks No Evidence Yet N/A
People requiring retreatment of periapical lesions Root-end resection (with root-end filling) Root canal retreatment Pain assessed with visual analogue scale (VAS) from 0 to 100 - 1 day No Evidence Yet N/A
People requiring retreatment of periapical lesions SuperEBA IRM Pain assessed with visual analogue scale (VAS) from 0 to 100 - 1 day No Evidence Yet N/A
People requiring retreatment of periapical lesions SuperEBA IRM Prevalence of pain at 1 day No Evidence Yet N/A
People requiring retreatment of periapical lesions SuperEBA IRM Height loss of interdental papilla - 1 year No Evidence Yet N/A
People requiring retreatment of periapical lesions SuperEBA IRM Occurrence of postoperative infection at 4 weeks No Evidence Yet N/A
People requiring retreatment of periapical lesions SuperEBA IRM Maximum pain assessed with verbal rating scale (VRS) No Evidence Yet N/A
People requiring retreatment of periapical lesions Ultrasonic instruments Bur Maximum pain assessed with verbal rating scale (VRS) No Evidence Yet N/A
People requiring retreatment of periapical lesions Ultrasonic instruments Bur Pain assessed with visual analogue scale (VAS) from 0 to 100 - 1 day No Evidence Yet N/A
People requiring retreatment of periapical lesions Ultrasonic instruments Bur Prevalence of pain at 1 day No Evidence Yet N/A
People requiring retreatment of periapical lesions Ultrasonic instruments Bur Occurrence of postoperative infection at 4 weeks No Evidence Yet N/A
People requiring retreatment of periapical lesions Ultrasonic instruments Bur Height loss of interdental papilla - 1 year No Evidence Yet N/A
People requiring retreatment of periapical lesions CBCT Periapical radiography Healing - 1 year Very Low Not specified
People requiring retreatment of periapical lesions Glass ionomer cement Amalgam Healing - 1 year Very Low Not specified
People requiring retreatment of periapical lesions IRM Gutta-percha Healing - 1 year Very Low Not specified
People requiring retreatment of periapical lesions LLLT Control Maximum pain assessed with verbal rating scale (VRS) Very Low Not specified
People requiring retreatment of periapical lesions LLLT Placebo Maximum pain assessed with verbal rating scale (VRS) Very Low Not specified
People requiring retreatment of periapical lesions PBI Complete mobilisation Height loss of interdental papilla - 1 year Very Low Not specified
People requiring retreatment of periapical lesions PBI Complete mobilisation Pain assessed with visual analogue scale (VAS) from 0 to 100 - 1 day Very Low Not specified
People requiring retreatment of periapical lesions Preoperative antibiotic prophylaxis Placebo Occurrence of postoperative infection - 4 weeks Very Low Not specified
People requiring retreatment of periapical lesions Root-end resection (with root-end filling) Root canal retreatment Healing - 1 year Very Low Not specified
People requiring retreatment of periapical lesions SuperEBA IRM Healing - 1 year Very Low Not specified
Previous Versions
CD005511.PUB2
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Studies
Patients with periapical lesions Surgical retreatment Non-surgical retreatment 1-year healing rate (random effects) No Evidence Yet -
Patients with periapical lesions Surgical retreatment Non-surgical retreatment Post-operative pain and swelling No Evidence Yet -
Patients with periapical lesions Surgical retreatment Non-surgical retreatment 4-year healing rate No Evidence Yet -
Patients with periapical lesions Surgical retreatment Non-surgical retreatment 2-year healing rate No Evidence Yet -
Patients with periapical lesions Surgical retreatment Non-surgical retreatment 1-year healing rate No Evidence Yet -
CD005512
Current Version: CD005512.PUB3 | 1 older version
Current Evidence Gaps 9 gaps
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Downgrade Reason
decayed primary molar teeth preformed crown filling Gingival bleeding - long term (12 months) Low Not specified
decayed primary molar teeth preformed crown filling Pain - long term (12 months to 24 months) Moderate Not specified
decayed primary molar teeth preformed crown filling Major failure - long term (12 months to 48 months) Moderate Not specified
decayed primary molar teeth preformed crown filling Discomfort associated with the procedure Moderate Not specified
children with decayed primary molar teeth preformed crown non-restorative caries treatment Satisfaction with treatment No Evidence Yet N/A
children with decayed primary molar teeth preformed crown non-restorative caries treatment Pain No Evidence Yet N/A
decayed primary molar teeth preformed crown filling Satisfaction with treatment No Evidence Yet N/A
nan nan nan nan No Evidence Yet N/A
nan nan nan nan No Evidence Yet N/A
children with decayed primary molar teeth preformed crown non-restorative caries treatment Discomfort associated with the procedure Very Low Not specified
children with decayed primary molar teeth preformed crown non-restorative caries treatment Gingival bleeding - long term (12 months) Very Low Not specified
children with decayed primary molar teeth preformed crown non-restorative caries treatment Major failure (12 months) Very Low Not specified
Previous Versions
CD005512.PUB2
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Studies
Children with dental caries Preformed metal crowns Conventional restorations Treatment success No Evidence Yet -
CD005514
Current Version: CD005514.PUB2
Current Evidence Gaps 9 gaps
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Downgrade Reason
Adults with sleep bruxism Occlusal splint Palatal splint Arousal index No Evidence Yet N/A
Adults with sleep bruxism Occlusal splint Palatal splint Awakenings during sleep No Evidence Yet N/A
Adults with sleep bruxism Occlusal splint Palatal splint Episodes with grinding noise No Evidence Yet N/A
Adults with sleep bruxism Occlusal splint Palatal splint Total sleep time No Evidence Yet N/A
Adults with sleep bruxism Occlusal splint Palatal splint Bruxism episodes per hour No Evidence Yet N/A
Adults with sleep bruxism Occlusal splint Palatal splint Sleep efficiency No Evidence Yet N/A
Adults with TMD and bruxism Occlusal splint TENS Clicks in TMJ (opening or closing) No Evidence Yet N/A
Adults with TMD and bruxism Occlusal splint TENS Clicks in TMJ during opening/closing No Evidence Yet N/A
Children with bruxism Occlusal splint No treatment Increase in wear facets size No Evidence Yet N/A
CD005515
Current Version: CD005515.PUB3 | 1 older version
Current Evidence Gaps 6 gaps
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Downgrade Reason
Children with anterior open bite FR-4 with lip-seal training No treatment Open bite correction No Evidence Yet N/A
Children with anterior open bite FR-4 with lip-seal training No treatment Total anterior facial height change (mm) No Evidence Yet N/A
Children with anterior open bite FR-4 with lip-seal training No treatment Upper incisor retrusion (degrees) No Evidence Yet N/A
Children with anterior open bite Removable appliance with palatal crib + high-pull chincup No treatment Open bite correction No Evidence Yet N/A
Children with anterior open bite Removable appliance with palatal crib + high-pull chincup No treatment Skeletal changes (angles SN.GoGN SN.PP NS.Gn) No Evidence Yet N/A
Children with anterior open bite Repelling-magnet splints Bite-blocks Open bite correction No Evidence Yet N/A
Previous Versions
CD005515.PUB2
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Studies
Children with anterior open bite FR-4 with lip-seal training No treatment Total anterior facial height change No Evidence Yet -
Children with anterior open bite FR-4 with lip-seal training No treatment Total posterior facial height change No Evidence Yet -
Children with anterior open bite FR-4 with lip-seal training No treatment Lower anterior facial height change No Evidence Yet -
Children with anterior open bite FR-4 with lip-seal training No treatment Upper incisor retrusion (1/ANSPNS) No Evidence Yet -
Children with anterior open bite FR-4 with lip-seal training No treatment Open bite correction No Evidence Yet -
Children with anterior open bite Removable appliance with palatal crib + high-pull chincup No treatment Open bite correction No Evidence Yet -
Children with anterior open bite Removable appliance with palatal crib + high-pull chincup No treatment Skeletal changes (SNA/SNB/angles) No Evidence Yet -
Children with anterior open bite Repelling-magnet splints Bite-blocks Open bite correction No Evidence Yet -
CD005516
Current Version: CD005516.PUB2
Current Evidence Gaps 5 gaps
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Downgrade Reason
Children and adults with fixed orthodontic brackets Self etching primers (one‐step etchant and primer system) Conventional etchants (two‐step etch and prime method using 37% phosphoric acid) Bond failure rate (5 to 37 months) Low Not specified
Children and adults with fixed orthodontic brackets Self etching primers (one‐step etchant and primer system) Conventional etchants (two‐step etch and prime method using 37% phosphoric acid) Cost of treatment No Evidence Yet N/A
Children and adults with fixed orthodontic brackets Self etching primers (one‐step etchant and primer system) Conventional etchants (two‐step etch and prime method using 37% phosphoric acid) Damage to the teeth No Evidence Yet N/A
Children and adults with fixed orthodontic brackets Self etching primers (one‐step etchant and primer system) Conventional etchants (two‐step etch and prime method using 37% phosphoric acid) Decay (decalcification) associated with or around the etching field No Evidence Yet N/A
Children and adults with fixed orthodontic brackets Self etching primers (one‐step etchant and primer system) Conventional etchants (two‐step etch and prime method using 37% phosphoric acid) Participant satisfaction No Evidence Yet N/A
CD005517
Current Version: CD005517.PUB3 | 1 older version
Current Evidence Gaps 13 gaps
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Downgrade Reason
patients needing retrograde filling in root canal therapy Dentine-bonded resin composite Glass ionomer cement Adverse events No Evidence Yet N/A
patients needing retrograde filling in root canal therapy Glass ionomer cement Amalgam Adverse events No Evidence Yet N/A
patients needing retrograde filling in root canal therapy MTA Super-EBA Adverse events No Evidence Yet N/A
patients needing retrograde filling in root canal therapy MTA RRM Adverse events No Evidence Yet N/A
patients needing retrograde filling in root canal therapy MTA IRM Adverse events No Evidence Yet N/A
patients needing retrograde filling in root canal therapy Super-EBA IRM Adverse events No Evidence Yet N/A
patients needing retrograde filling in root canal therapy Dentine-bonded resin composite Glass ionomer cement Success rate – 1-year outcome PP analysis (root as unit of analysis) Very Low Not specified
patients needing retrograde filling in root canal therapy Dentine-bonded resin composite Glass ionomer cement Success rate – 1-year outcome PP analysis (tooth as unit of analysis) Very Low Not specified
patients needing retrograde filling in root canal therapy Glass ionomer cement Amalgam Success rate – 1-year outcome (tooth as unit of analysis) Very Low Not specified
patients needing retrograde filling in root canal therapy MTA RRM Success rate – 1-year outcome (tooth as unit of analysis) Very Low Not specified
patients needing retrograde filling in root canal therapy MTA IRM Success rate – 1-year outcome (tooth as unit of analysis) Very Low Not specified
patients needing retrograde filling in root canal therapy MTA Super-EBA Success rate – 1-year outcome (tooth as unit of analysis) Very Low Not specified
patients needing retrograde filling in root canal therapy Super-EBA IRM Success rate – 1-year outcome (tooth as unit of analysis) Very Low Not specified
Previous Versions
CD005517.PUB2
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Studies
patients needing retrograde filling in root canal therapy MTA IRM Success rate - 1-year outcome (teeth as unit of analysis) Low -
patients needing retrograde filling in root canal therapy Dentine-bonded resin composite Glass ionomer cement Success rate - 1-year outcome PP analysis (participants as unit of analysis) Very Low -
patients needing retrograde filling in root canal therapy Dentine-bonded resin composite Glass ionomer cement Success rate - 1-year outcome PP analysis (root as unit of analysis) Very Low -
patients needing retrograde filling in root canal therapy Glass ionomer cement Amalgam Success rate - 5-year outcome Very Low -
patients needing retrograde filling in root canal therapy MTA Super-EBA Success rate - 1-year outcome (participants as unit of analysis) Very Low -
patients needing retrograde filling in root canal therapy Super-EBA IRM Success rate - 1-year outcome (teeth as unit of analysis) Very Low -
CD005519
Current Version: CD005519.PUB2
Current Evidence Gaps 5 gaps
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Downgrade Reason
Adults with halitosis Tongue cleaner Toothbrush VSC reduction at 15-25 minutes No Evidence Yet N/A
Adults with halitosis Tongue scraper Toothbrush VSC reduction No Evidence Yet N/A
Adults with halitosis Tongue scraper Toothbrush VSC reduction at 15-25 minutes No Evidence Yet N/A
Adults with halitosis Toothbrush No intervention VSC reduction No Evidence Yet N/A
Adults with halitosis Toothbrush No intervention VSC reduction at 15-25 minutes No Evidence Yet N/A
CD005520
Current Version: CD005520.PUB3 | 1 older version
Current Evidence Gaps 7 gaps
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Downgrade Reason
Children (age range 4 to 10 years old) Oral appliance No treatment Daytime symptoms: Sleepiness Very Low Not specified
Children (age range 4 to 10 years old) Oral appliance No treatment Daytime symptoms: Tiredness Very Low Not specified
Children (age range 4 to 10 years old) Oral appliance No treatment Daytime symptoms: Irritability Very Low Not specified
Children (age range 4 to 10 years old) Oral appliance No treatment Daytime symptoms: School problems Very Low Not specified
Children (age range 4 to 10 years old) Oral appliance No treatment Daytime symptoms: Morning headache Very Low Not specified
Children (age range 4 to 10 years old) Oral appliance No treatment Daytime symptoms: Oral breathing Very Low Not specified
Children (age range 4 to 10 years old) Oral appliance No treatment Apnoea–hypopnoea index (AHI) Very Low Not specified
Previous Versions
CD005520.PUB2
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Studies
Children 4-10 years with apnea index >1 and dysgnathia Oral appliance No treatment Oral breathing No Evidence Yet -
Children 4-10 years with apnea index >1 and dysgnathia Oral appliance No treatment Restless sleep No Evidence Yet -
Children 4-10 years with apnea index >1 and dysgnathia Oral appliance No treatment Habitual snoring No Evidence Yet -
Children 4-10 years with apnea index >1 and dysgnathia Oral appliance No treatment Nasal stuffiness No Evidence Yet -
Children 4-10 years with apnea index >1 and dysgnathia Oral appliance No treatment Apnea-hypopnea index reduction No Evidence Yet -
CD005620
Current Version: CD005620.PUB3 | 1 older version
Current Evidence Gaps 4 gaps
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Downgrade Reason
people with permanent or adult posterior teeth composite amalgam Failure rate Low Not specified
people with permanent or adult posterior teeth composite amalgam Fracture of restorations Low Not specified
people with permanent or adult posterior teeth composite amalgam Secondary caries Low Not specified
people with permanent or adult posterior teeth composite amalgam Harms Very Low Not specified
Previous Versions
CD005620.PUB2
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Studies
people with permanent or adult posterior teeth composite amalgam Failure rate Low -
people with permanent or adult posterior teeth composite amalgam Secondary caries Low -
people with permanent or adult posterior teeth composite amalgam Fracture of restorations Low -
people with permanent or adult posterior teeth composite amalgam Adverse events No Evidence Yet -
CD005968
Current Version: CD005968.PUB3 | 1 older version
Current Evidence Gaps 10 gaps
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Downgrade Reason
Patients requiring single tooth implants Autogenous bone graft No augmentation Implant failures and complications No Evidence Yet N/A
Patients requiring single tooth implants Bio-Oss + barrier Bio-Oss alone Bone gain No Evidence Yet N/A
Patients requiring single tooth implants Immediate-delayed implants Delayed implants Patient perception of treatment period No Evidence Yet N/A
Patients requiring single tooth implants Immediate-delayed implants Delayed implants Complications at 5 years No Evidence Yet N/A
Patients requiring single tooth implants Immediate-delayed implants Delayed implants Marginal mucosa level appropriateness No Evidence Yet N/A
Patients requiring single tooth implants Immediate-delayed implants Delayed implants Patient satisfaction No Evidence Yet N/A
Patients requiring single tooth implants Immediate implants Delayed implants Papilla height and marginal mucosa level No Evidence Yet N/A
Patients requiring single tooth implants Immediate implants Delayed implants Implant failures No Evidence Yet N/A
Patients requiring single tooth implants Immediate implants Delayed implants Prosthesis failures No Evidence Yet N/A
Patients requiring single tooth implants Immediate implants Immediate-delayed implants Marginal mucosa level No Evidence Yet N/A
Previous Versions
CD005968.PUB2
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Studies
Adults needing single tooth replacement Immediate-delayed implants Delayed implants Marginal mucosa level appropriateness No Evidence Yet -
Adults needing single tooth replacement Immediate-delayed implants Delayed implants Patient satisfaction - Treatment period perception No Evidence Yet -
Adults needing single tooth replacement Immediate-delayed implants Delayed implants Overall patient satisfaction No Evidence Yet -
Adults needing single tooth replacement Immediate-delayed implants Delayed implants Papilla height No Evidence Yet -
Adults needing single tooth replacement Immediate-delayed implants Delayed implants Implant failure No Evidence Yet -
Adults needing single tooth replacement Immediate-delayed implants Delayed implants Prosthesis failure No Evidence Yet -
Adults needing single tooth replacement Immediate implants Delayed implants Implant failure No Evidence Yet -
Adults needing single tooth replacement Immediate implants Delayed implants Complications No Evidence Yet -
Adults needing single tooth replacement Immediate implants Delayed implants Prosthesis failure No Evidence Yet -
CD005969
Current Version: CD005969.PUB3 | 1 older version
Current Evidence Gaps 1 gap
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Downgrade Reason
Patients requiring endodontic surgery Magnification devices nan nan No Evidence Yet N/A
Previous Versions
CD005969.PUB2
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Studies
Patients requiring endodontic treatment Magnification devices No magnification Treatment outcomes No Evidence Yet -
CD005970
Current Version: CD005970.PUB3 | 1 older version
Current Evidence Gaps 7 gaps
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Downgrade Reason
Adults with defective amalgam restorations in a molar or premolar tooth/teeth Repair of defective amalgam restoration (with amalgam) Replacement of defective amalgam restoration (with amalgam) Perioperative or postoperative pain or discomfort No Evidence Yet N/A
Adults with defective amalgam restorations in a molar or premolar tooth/teeth Repair of defective amalgam restoration (with amalgam) Replacement of defective amalgam restoration (with amalgam) Patient satisfaction as measured by patient satisfaction or aesthetic scales No Evidence Yet N/A
Adults with defective amalgam restorations in a molar or premolar tooth/teeth Repair of defective amalgam restoration (with amalgam) Replacement of defective amalgam restoration (with amalgam) Adverse events No Evidence Yet N/A
Adults with defective amalgam restorations in a molar or premolar tooth/teeth Repair of defective amalgam restoration (with amalgam) Replacement of defective amalgam restoration (with amalgam) Success or failure of restoration using a defined criteria No Evidence Yet N/A
Adults with defective amalgam restorations in a molar or premolar tooth/teeth Repair of defective amalgam restoration (with amalgam) Replacement of defective amalgam restoration (with amalgam) Further restoration required No Evidence Yet N/A
Adults with defective amalgam restorations in a molar or premolar tooth/teeth Repair of defective amalgam restoration (with amalgam) Replacement of defective amalgam restoration (with amalgam) Extraction of tooth (due to decay) No Evidence Yet N/A
Adults with defective amalgam restorations in a molar or premolar tooth/teeth Repair of defective amalgam restoration (with amalgam) Replacement of defective amalgam restoration (with amalgam) Presence of clinical symptoms (pain, swelling, diagnosis of pulpitis, abscess formation) No Evidence Yet N/A
Previous Versions
CD005970.PUB2
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Studies
Patients requiring dental restoration repairs Restoration repair materials nan nan No Evidence Yet -
CD005971
Current Version: CD005971.PUB3 | 1 older version
Current Evidence Gaps 7 gaps
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Downgrade Reason
Adults with defective resin composite restorations in a molar or premolar tooth/teeth Repair of defective resin composite restoration (with resin composite) Replacement of defective resin composite restoration (with resin composite) Presence of clinical symptoms (pain, swelling, diagnosis of pulpitis, abscess formation) No Evidence Yet N/A
Adults with defective resin composite restorations in a molar or premolar tooth/teeth Repair of defective resin composite restoration (with resin composite) Replacement of defective resin composite restoration (with resin composite) Adverse events No Evidence Yet N/A
Adults with defective resin composite restorations in a molar or premolar tooth/teeth Repair of defective resin composite restoration (with resin composite) Replacement of defective resin composite restoration (with resin composite) Patient satisfaction as measured by patient satisfaction or aesthetic scales No Evidence Yet N/A
Adults with defective resin composite restorations in a molar or premolar tooth/teeth Repair of defective resin composite restoration (with resin composite) Replacement of defective resin composite restoration (with resin composite) Perioperative or postoperative pain or discomfort No Evidence Yet N/A
Adults with defective resin composite restorations in a molar or premolar tooth/teeth Repair of defective resin composite restoration (with resin composite) Replacement of defective resin composite restoration (with resin composite) Success or failure of restoration, using a defined criteria No Evidence Yet N/A
Adults with defective resin composite restorations in a molar or premolar tooth/teeth Repair of defective resin composite restoration (with resin composite) Replacement of defective resin composite restoration (with resin composite) Further restoration required No Evidence Yet N/A
Adults with defective resin composite restorations in a molar or premolar tooth/teeth Repair of defective resin composite restoration (with resin composite) Replacement of defective resin composite restoration (with resin composite) Extraction of tooth (due to decay) No Evidence Yet N/A
Previous Versions
CD005971.PUB2
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Studies
Patients with dental restorations Restoration repair nan nan No Evidence Yet -
CD005972
Current Version: CD005972.PUB4 | 2 older versions
Current Evidence Gaps 1 gap
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Downgrade Reason
children with deep bite and retroclined upper front teeth orthodontic treatment extraction or no treatment Dento‐occlusal results of treatment, measured with the PAR index No Evidence Yet N/A
Previous Versions
CD005972.PUB3
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Studies
nan nan nan nan No Evidence Yet -
CD005972.PUB2
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Studies
nan nan nan nan No Evidence Yet -
CD006087
Current Version: CD006087.PUB3 | 1 older version
Current Evidence Gaps 10 gaps
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Downgrade Reason
Mandibular angle fracture patients Combined transbuccal-intraoral Intraoral alone Infection at 3 months No Evidence Yet N/A
Mandibular angle fracture patients Combined transbuccal-intraoral Intraoral alone Wound dehiscence at 3 months No Evidence Yet N/A
Mandibular angle fracture patients Combined transbuccal-intraoral Intraoral alone Non-union No Evidence Yet N/A
Mandibular angle fracture patients Combined transbuccal-intraoral Intraoral alone Plate removal No Evidence Yet N/A
Mandibular angle fracture patients Single miniplate Two miniplates Post-operative infection No Evidence Yet N/A
Mandibular fracture patients 3D miniplates Conventional plates Post-operative infection No Evidence Yet N/A
Mandibular fracture patients 3D miniplates Conventional miniplates Post-operative MMF requirement No Evidence Yet N/A
Mandibular fracture patients Resorbable plates Titanium plates Malocclusion No Evidence Yet N/A
Mandibular fracture patients Resorbable plates Titanium plates Neurosensory disturbance at 1 month No Evidence Yet N/A
Mandibular fracture patients Resorbable plates Titanium plates Mobility No Evidence Yet N/A
Previous Versions
CD006087.PUB2
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Studies
Edentulous patients with mandibular condyle fractures Conservative or surgical interventions nan nan No Evidence Yet -
CD006202
Current Version: CD006202.PUB2
Current Evidence Gaps 72 gaps
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Downgrade Reason
Adults undergoing bleaching 16% CP + ACP gel in tray 16% CP gel in tray Tooth whitening - 6 months Low Not specified
Adults undergoing bleaching 6.5% HP strips 16% CP gel in tray Tooth whitening - 21 days Low Not specified
Adults undergoing bleaching 6% HP strips Placebo Tooth whitening - 2 weeks Low Not specified
Adults undergoing bleaching 18% CP paint-on gel Placebo Adverse effects No Evidence Yet N/A
Adults undergoing bleaching 6% HP gel Placebo Adverse effects No Evidence Yet N/A
Adults undergoing bleaching 6% HP paint-on gel Placebo Adverse effects No Evidence Yet N/A
Adults undergoing bleaching CP gel in tray Placebo Adverse effects No Evidence Yet N/A
Adults undergoing bleaching CP gel in tray HP gel in tray Adverse effects No Evidence Yet N/A
Adults undergoing bleaching CP gel in tray CP gel in tray Adverse effects No Evidence Yet N/A
Adults undergoing bleaching CP paint-on gel HP strips Adverse effects No Evidence Yet N/A
Adults undergoing bleaching CP paint-on gel CP paint-on gel Adverse effects No Evidence Yet N/A
Adults undergoing bleaching HP mouthwash Placebo Adverse effects No Evidence Yet N/A
Adults undergoing bleaching HP paint-on gel CP paint-on gel Adverse effects No Evidence Yet N/A
Adults undergoing bleaching HP paint-on gel HP strips Adverse effects No Evidence Yet N/A
Adults undergoing bleaching HP paint-on gel HP paint-on gel Adverse effects No Evidence Yet N/A
Adults undergoing bleaching HP strips HP gel in tray Adverse effects No Evidence Yet N/A
Adults undergoing bleaching HP strips HP strips Adverse effects No Evidence Yet N/A
Adults undergoing bleaching HP strips CP gel in tray Adverse effects No Evidence Yet N/A
Adults undergoing bleaching HP strips Placebo Adverse effects No Evidence Yet N/A
Adults undergoing bleaching SHMP chewing gum Placebo Adverse effects No Evidence Yet N/A
Adults undergoing bleaching SPC paint-on gel CP paint-on gel Adverse effects No Evidence Yet N/A
Adults undergoing bleaching STPP chewing gum Placebo Adverse effects No Evidence Yet N/A
Adults undergoing bleaching 10% CP gel (dark shade) Placebo Tooth whitening - 2 weeks Very Low Not specified
Adults undergoing bleaching 10% CP gel in tray Placebo Tooth whitening - 6 months Very Low Not specified
Adults undergoing bleaching 10% CP gel in tray 10% CP gel in tray Tooth whitening - 2 weeks Very Low Not specified
Adults undergoing bleaching 10% CP gel (lighter shade) Placebo Tooth whitening - 2 weeks Very Low Not specified
Adults undergoing bleaching 10% CP gel (medium dark shade) Placebo Tooth whitening - 2 weeks Very Low Not specified
Adults undergoing bleaching 10% CP gel with desensitiser Placebo Tooth whitening - 2 weeks Very Low Not specified
Adults undergoing bleaching 10% CP + KN + NaF gel in tray 10% CP gel in tray Tooth whitening - 2 weeks Very Low Not specified
Adults undergoing bleaching 10% HP strips Placebo Tooth whitening - 15 days Very Low Not specified
Adults undergoing bleaching 10% HP strips Placebo Tooth whitening - 8 days Very Low Not specified
Adults undergoing bleaching 14% HP strips 9.5% HP gel in tray Tooth whitening - 22 days Very Low Not specified
Adults undergoing bleaching 14% HP strips Placebo Tooth whitening - 3 weeks Very Low Not specified
Adults undergoing bleaching 14% HP strips Placebo Tooth whitening - 6 weeks Very Low Not specified
Adults undergoing bleaching 14% HP strips 35% CP gel in tray Tooth whitening - 30 days Very Low Not specified
Adults undergoing bleaching 15% CP gel in tray 10% CP gel in tray Tooth whitening - 2 weeks Very Low Not specified
Adults undergoing bleaching 1.5% HP + 0.05% HF mouthwash Placebo Tooth whitening - 6 months Very Low Not specified
Adults undergoing bleaching 16.40% CP paint-on gel 18% CP paint-on gel Tooth whitening - 2 weeks Very Low Not specified
Adults undergoing bleaching 16% CP gel in tray 10% CP gel in tray Tooth whitening - 2-year follow-up Very Low Not specified
Adults undergoing bleaching 17% CP gel in tray 10% CP gel in tray Tooth whitening - 3 weeks (patient-reported) Very Low Not specified
Adults undergoing bleaching 18% CP paint-on gel 6% HP strips Tooth whitening Very Low Not specified
Adults undergoing bleaching 18% CP paint-on gel Placebo Tooth whitening - 3 weeks Very Low Not specified
Adults undergoing bleaching 18% CP paint-on gel 4x 1 week 18% CP paint-on gel 2x 1 week Tooth whitening - 1 week Very Low Not specified
Adults undergoing bleaching 19% SPC paint-on gel 18% CP paint-on gel Tooth whitening - 14 days Very Low Not specified
Adults undergoing bleaching 1% STPP chewing gum Placebo Tooth whitening - 6 weeks Very Low Not specified
Adults undergoing bleaching 4% SHMP chewing gum Placebo Tooth whitening - 12 weeks Very Low Not specified
Adults undergoing bleaching 5.3% HP strips Placebo Tooth whitening - 6 months Very Low Not specified
Adults undergoing bleaching 5.3% HP strips 5% HP gel in tray Tooth whitening - 18 months Very Low Not specified
Adults undergoing bleaching 5.3% HP strips 5% HP gel in tray Patient comfort Very Low Not specified
Adults undergoing bleaching 5.6% SHMP chewing gum Placebo Tooth whitening - 3 days Very Low Not specified
Adults undergoing bleaching 5.9% HP paint-on gel 5.9% HP strips Tooth whitening Very Low Not specified
Adults undergoing bleaching 5.9% HP paint-on gel 5.9% HP strips Patient satisfaction Very Low Not specified
Adults undergoing bleaching 5% CP gel in tray 10% CP gel in tray Tooth whitening - 2 weeks Very Low Not specified
Adults undergoing bleaching 5% CP gel in tray Placebo Tooth whitening - 2 weeks Very Low Not specified
Adults undergoing bleaching 6.5% HP strips 15% CP gel in tray Tooth whitening - 3 months Very Low Not specified
Adults undergoing bleaching 6% HP gel Placebo Tooth whitening - 14 days Very Low Not specified
Adults undergoing bleaching 6% HP gel in tray 10% CP gel in tray Tooth whitening - 2 weeks (darker shade) Very Low Not specified
Adults undergoing bleaching 6% HP gel in tray 10% CP gel in tray Tooth whitening - 2 weeks (medium dark and lighter shade) Very Low Not specified
Adults undergoing bleaching 6% HP paint-on gel Placebo Tooth whitening - 2 weeks Very Low Not specified
Adults undergoing bleaching 6% HP paint-on gel with KF 6% HP paint-on gel Tooth whitening Very Low Not specified
Adults undergoing bleaching 6% HP strips 5% CP + 5% KN gel in tray Tooth whitening - 1 week Very Low Not specified
Adults undergoing bleaching 6% HP strips 10% CP gel in tray Tooth whitening - 2 weeks Very Low Not specified
Adults undergoing bleaching 6% HP strips 10% HP thin gel strips Tooth whitening - 15 days Very Low Not specified
Adults undergoing bleaching 6% HP strips Placebo Tooth whitening - 6 weeks Very Low Not specified
Adults undergoing bleaching 6% HP strips 10% CP gel in tray Tooth whitening - 6 weeks Very Low Not specified
Adults undergoing bleaching 7.5% HP gel in tray 20% CP gel in tray Tooth whitening - 12 days Very Low Not specified
Adults undergoing bleaching 7.5% HP gel in tray 10% CP gel in tray Tooth whitening - 2 weeks Very Low Not specified
Adults undergoing bleaching 7.5% HP gel in tray 20% CP gel in tray Tooth whitening - 12 weeks Very Low Not specified
Adults undergoing bleaching 7.5% SHMP chewing gum Placebo Tooth whitening - 2 days Very Low Not specified
Adults undergoing bleaching 8.75% HP paint-on gel 25% CP paint-on gel Tooth whitening Very Low Not specified
Adults undergoing bleaching 9.5% adhesion HP strips 10% HP strips Tooth whitening - 9 days Very Low Not specified
Adults undergoing bleaching 9% HP gel in tray 20% CP gel in tray Tooth whitening - 2 weeks Very Low Not specified
CD006203
Current Version: CD006203.PUB2
Current Evidence Gaps 1 gap
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Downgrade Reason
nan nan nan nan No Evidence Yet N/A
CD006204
Current Version: CD006204.PUB3 | 1 older version
Current Evidence Gaps 5 gaps
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Downgrade Reason
Adults undergoing orthognathic surgery Resorbable plates Titanium plates Adverse effects Very Low Not specified
Adults undergoing orthognathic surgery Resorbable plates Titanium plates Postoperative pain during the immediate recovery period Very Low Not specified
Adults undergoing orthognathic surgery Resorbable plates Titanium plates Patient satisfaction Very Low Not specified
Adults undergoing orthognathic surgery Resorbable plates Titanium plates Postoperative chronic or lasting pain Very Low Not specified
Adults undergoing orthognathic surgery Resorbable plates Titanium plates Need for retreatment or replacement of fixation due to failure of the fixation Very Low Not specified
Previous Versions
CD006204.PUB2
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Studies
Adults undergoing orthognathic surgery Resorbable plates Titanium plates Plate infection rate No Evidence Yet -
Adults undergoing orthognathic surgery Resorbable plates Titanium plates Patient satisfaction at 4-6 months No Evidence Yet -
Adults undergoing orthognathic surgery Resorbable plates Titanium plates Wound discomfort at 4-6 months No Evidence Yet -
Adults undergoing orthognathic surgery Resorbable plates Titanium plates Wound dehiscence No Evidence Yet -
Adults undergoing orthognathic surgery Resorbable plates Titanium plates Plate exposure rate No Evidence Yet -
Showing 81 to 100 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%)