Evidence Gaps Analysis

3688 outcomes from 214 review series
Clear
CD007154
Current Version: CD007154.PUB2
Current Evidence Gaps 4 gaps
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Downgrade Reason
Children aged 10-16 years Hypnosis with oxygen Inhalation sedation with nitrous oxide Behavioral response during extraction No Evidence Yet N/A
Children aged 4-13 years Hypnosis No hypnosis Crying during LA administration No Evidence Yet N/A
Children aged 4-13 years No hypnosis No hypnosis Crying during LA administration No Evidence Yet N/A
Children mean age 10.78 years Hypnosis Verbal motivation Orthodontic headgear wear compliance No Evidence Yet N/A
CD007156
Current Version: CD007156.PUB3 | 1 older version
Current Evidence Gaps 35 gaps
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Downgrade Reason
People with oral submucous fibrosis Antioxidant Placebo Interincisal distance (> 6 months) Low Not specified
People with oral submucous fibrosis Antioxidant Placebo Interincisal distance (< 3 months) Low Not specified
People with oral submucous fibrosis Pentoxifylline Placebo Interincisal distance (< 3 months) Low Not specified
People with oral submucous fibrosis Antioxidant Placebo Burning sensation (< 3 months) Moderate Not specified
People with oral submucous fibrosis Antioxidant Placebo Interincisal distance (3-6 months) Moderate Not specified
People with oral submucous fibrosis Antioxidant Placebo Burning sensation (3-6 months) Moderate Not specified
People with oral submucous fibrosis Antioxidant Placebo Burning sensation (> 6 months) Moderate Not specified
People with oral submucous fibrosis Antioxidant Placebo Participant?reported resumption of normal eating, chewing and speech No Evidence Yet N/A
People with oral submucous fibrosis Antioxidant Placebo Adverse effects No Evidence Yet N/A
People with oral submucous fibrosis Dexamethasone Placebo Adverse effects No Evidence Yet N/A
People with oral submucous fibrosis Dexamethasone Placebo Interincisal distance (> 6 months) No Evidence Yet N/A
People with oral submucous fibrosis Dexamethasone Placebo Burning sensation (> 6 months) No Evidence Yet N/A
People with oral submucous fibrosis Hydrocortisone + hyaluronidase Placebo Interincisal distance (> 6 months) No Evidence Yet N/A
People with oral submucous fibrosis Hydrocortisone + hyaluronidase Placebo Interincisal distance (< 3 months) No Evidence Yet N/A
People with oral submucous fibrosis Hydrocortisone + hyaluronidase Placebo Adverse effects No Evidence Yet N/A
People with oral submucous fibrosis Hydrocortisone + hyaluronidase Placebo Burning sensation No Evidence Yet N/A
People with oral submucous fibrosis Pentoxifylline Placebo Burning sensation (> 6 months) No Evidence Yet N/A
People with oral submucous fibrosis Pentoxifylline Placebo Adverse effects No Evidence Yet N/A
People with oral submucous fibrosis Pentoxifylline Placebo Burning sensation (< 3 months) No Evidence Yet N/A
People with oral submucous fibrosis Pentoxifylline Placebo Interincisal distance (> 6 months) No Evidence Yet N/A
People with oral submucous fibrosis Physiotherapy No active treatment Adverse effects No Evidence Yet N/A
People with oral submucous fibrosis Physiotherapy No active treatment Interincisal distance (< 3 months) No Evidence Yet N/A
People with oral submucous fibrosis Physiotherapy No active treatment Interincisal distance (> 6 months) No Evidence Yet N/A
People with oral submucous fibrosis Physiotherapy No active treatment Burning sensation No Evidence Yet N/A
People with oral submucous fibrosis Vasodilator Placebo Interincisal distance (> 6 months) No Evidence Yet N/A
People with oral submucous fibrosis Vasodilator Placebo Adverse effects No Evidence Yet N/A
People with oral submucous fibrosis Vasodilator Placebo Burning sensation (> 6 months) No Evidence Yet N/A
People with oral submucous fibrosis Dexamethasone Placebo Burning sensation (3-6 months) Very Low Not specified
People with oral submucous fibrosis Dexamethasone Placebo Interincisal distance (< 3 months) Very Low Not specified
People with oral submucous fibrosis Dexamethasone Placebo Interincisal distance (3-6 months) Very Low Not specified
People with oral submucous fibrosis Dexamethasone Placebo Burning sensation (< 3 months) Very Low Not specified
People with oral submucous fibrosis Hydrocortisone + hyaluronidase Placebo Interincisal distance (3-6 months) Very Low Not specified
People with oral submucous fibrosis Pentoxifylline Placebo Interincisal distance (3-6 months) Very Low Not specified
People with oral submucous fibrosis Pentoxifylline Placebo Burning sensation (3-6 months) Very Low Not specified
People with oral submucous fibrosis Physiotherapy No active treatment Interincisal distance (3-6 months) Very Low Not specified
People with oral submucous fibrosis Vasodilator Placebo Burning sensation (< 3 months) Very Low Not specified
People with oral submucous fibrosis Vasodilator Placebo Burning sensation (3-6 months) Very Low Not specified
People with oral submucous fibrosis Vasodilator Placebo Interincisal distance (3-6 months) Very Low Not specified
People with oral submucous fibrosis Vasodilator Placebo Interincisal distance (< 3 months) Very Low Not specified
Previous Versions
CD007156.PUB2
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Studies
Adults with oral submucous fibrosis Lycopene Placebo Maximal jaw opening No Evidence Yet -
Adults with oral submucous fibrosis Lycopene + intralesional steroids Placebo Maximal jaw opening No Evidence Yet -
Adults with oral submucous fibrosis Pentoxifylline Multivitamin Burning sensation No Evidence Yet -
Adults with oral submucous fibrosis Pentoxifylline Multivitamin Maximal jaw opening No Evidence Yet -
CD007157
Current Version: CD007157.PUB2
Current Evidence Gaps 1 gap
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Downgrade Reason
Patients with amelogenesis imperfecta Restorative treatments nan nan No Evidence Yet N/A
CD007158
Current Version: CD007158.PUB2
Current Evidence Gaps 1 gap
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Downgrade Reason
Patients requiring facial fracture fixation Resorbable fixation systems Titanium fixation systems nan No Evidence Yet N/A
CD007161
Current Version: CD007161.PUB3 | 1 older version
Current Evidence Gaps 29 gaps
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Downgrade Reason
Adult patients with single recession-type defects ADMG + CAF CAF Clinical attachment level change Low Not specified
Adult patients with single recession-type defects ADMG + CAF SCTG + CAF Sites with complete root coverage Low Not specified
Adult patients with single recession-type defects ADMG + CAF SCTG + CAF Gingival recession change Low Not specified
Adult patients with single recession-type defects ADMG + CAF SCTG + CAF Clinical attachment level change Low Not specified
Adult patients with single recession-type defects ADMG + CAF CAF Gingival recession depth change Low Not specified
Adult patients with single recession-type defects ADMG + CAF CAF Keratinized tissue width change Low Not specified
Adult patients with single recession-type defects EMP + CAF SCTG + CAF Clinical attachment change Low Not specified
Adult patients with single recession-type defects EMP + CAF CAF Keratinized tissue width change Low Not specified
Adult patients with single recession-type defects EMP + CAF CAF Gingival recession depth change Low Not specified
Adult patients with single recession-type defects EMP + CAF CAF Clinical attachment level change Low Not specified
Adult patients with single recession-type defects GTR rm + CAF SCTG + CAF Clinical attachment level change Low Not specified
Adult patients with single recession-type defects GTR rm + CAF SCTG + CAF Gingival recession change Low Not specified
Adult patients with single recession-type defects GTR rm + CAF SCTG + CAF Sites with complete root coverage Low Not specified
Adult patients with single recession-type defects XCM + CAF CAF Keratinized tissue width change Low Not specified
Adult patients with single recession-type defects XCM + CAF CAF Gingival recession depth change Low Not specified
Adult patients with single recession-type defects XCM + CAF CAF Clinical attachment level change Low Not specified
Adult patients with single recession-type defects XCM + CAF CAF Sites with complete root coverage Low Not specified
Adult patients with single recession-type defects XCM + CAF CAF Aesthetic condition change related to patient's opinion Low Not specified
Adult patients with single recession-type defects ADMG + CAF SCTG + CAF Aesthetic condition change related to patient's opinion No Evidence Yet N/A
Adult patients with single recession-type defects ADMG + CAF CAF Aesthetic condition change related to patient's opinion No Evidence Yet N/A
Adult patients with single recession-type defects EMP + CAF CAF Aesthetic condition change related to patient's opinion No Evidence Yet N/A
Adult patients with single recession-type defects GTR rm + CAF SCTG + CAF Aesthetic condition change related to patient's opinion No Evidence Yet N/A
Adult patients with single recession-type defects ADMG + CAF CAF Sites with complete root coverage Very Low Not specified
Adult patients with single recession-type defects ADMG + CAF SCTG + CAF Keratinized tissue change Very Low Not specified
Adult patients with single recession-type defects EMP + CAF SCTG + CAF Sites with complete root coverage Very Low Not specified
Adult patients with single recession-type defects EMP + CAF SCTG + CAF Keratinized tissue change Very Low Not specified
Adult patients with single recession-type defects EMP + CAF SCTG + CAF Gingival recession change Very Low Not specified
Adult patients with single recession-type defects EMP + CAF SCTG + CAF Aesthetic condition change related to patient's opinion Very Low Not specified
Adult patients with single recession-type defects GTR rm + CAF SCTG + CAF Keratinized tissue change Very Low Not specified
Previous Versions
CD007161.PUB2
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Studies
Patients with gingival recession ADMG SCTG Gingival recession change No Evidence Yet -
Patients with gingival recession ADMG CAF Keratinized tissue change No Evidence Yet -
Patients with gingival recession ADMG CAF Clinical attachment level change No Evidence Yet -
Patients with gingival recession ADMG CAF Gingival recession change No Evidence Yet -
Patients with gingival recession ADMG SCTG Keratinized tissue change No Evidence Yet -
Patients with gingival recession ADMG SCTG Clinical attachment level change No Evidence Yet -
Patients with gingival recession EMP+CAF CAF Keratinized tissue change No Evidence Yet -
Patients with gingival recession EMP+CAF CAF Clinical attachment level change No Evidence Yet -
Patients with gingival recession EMP+CAF CAF Gingival recession change No Evidence Yet -
Patients with gingival recession GTR rm SCTG Complete root coverage No Evidence Yet -
Patients with gingival recession GTR rm SCTG Keratinized tissue change No Evidence Yet -
Patients with gingival recession GTR rm SCTG Clinical attachment level change No Evidence Yet -
Patients with gingival recession GTR rm SCTG Gingival recession change No Evidence Yet -
Patients with gingival recession GTR rm GTR nrm Keratinized tissue change No Evidence Yet -
Patients with gingival recession GTR rm GTR nrm Clinical attachment level change No Evidence Yet -
Patients with gingival recession GTR rm GTR nrm Gingival recession change No Evidence Yet -
Patients with gingival recession GTR rm+bone substitutes GTR rm Keratinized tissue change No Evidence Yet -
Patients with gingival recession GTR rm+bone substitutes GTR rm Clinical attachment level change No Evidence Yet -
Patients with gingival recession GTR rm+bone substitutes GTR rm Gingival recession change No Evidence Yet -
Patients with gingival recession GTR rm+bone substitutes SCTG Keratinized tissue change No Evidence Yet -
Patients with gingival recession GTR rm+bone substitutes SCTG Gingival recession change No Evidence Yet -
CD007261
Current Version: CD007261.PUB2
Current Evidence Gaps 14 gaps
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Downgrade Reason
TMJ osteoarthritis Diclofenac sodium Occlusal splint Complications No Evidence Yet N/A
TMJ osteoarthritis Glucosamine sulfate Ibuprofen Masticatory muscle tenderness No Evidence Yet N/A
TMJ osteoarthritis Glucosamine sulfate Ibuprofen BPI pain interference No Evidence Yet N/A
TMJ osteoarthritis Glucosamine sulfate Ibuprofen BPI pain intensity No Evidence Yet N/A
TMJ osteoarthritis Glucosamine sulfate Ibuprofen Maximum voluntary jaw opening No Evidence Yet N/A
TMJ osteoarthritis Glucosamine sulfate Ibuprofen Pain-free jaw opening No Evidence Yet N/A
TMJ osteoarthritis Glucosamine sulfate Ibuprofen Reported pain at 90 days No Evidence Yet N/A
TMJ osteoarthritis Sodium hyaluronate Corticosteroids Reported pain at 6 months No Evidence Yet N/A
TMJ osteoarthritis Sodium hyaluronate Corticosteroids Complications No Evidence Yet N/A
TMJ osteoarthritis Sodium hyaluronate Corticosteroids TMJ sounds at 6 months No Evidence Yet N/A
TMJ osteoarthritis Sodium hyaluronate Corticosteroids TMJ sounds at 1 month No Evidence Yet N/A
TMJ osteoarthritis Sodium hyaluronate Corticosteroids TMJ sounds at 14 days No Evidence Yet N/A
TMJ osteoarthritis Sodium hyaluronate Corticosteroids Reported pain at 1 month No Evidence Yet N/A
TMJ osteoarthritis Sodium hyaluronate Corticosteroids Reported pain at 14 days No Evidence Yet N/A
CD007395
Current Version: CD007395.PUB2
Current Evidence Gaps 15 gaps
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Downgrade Reason
Complete denture wearers Brushing No treatment Fusobacteria count No Evidence Yet N/A
Complete denture wearers Brushing Effervescent tablets Total anaerobes count No Evidence Yet N/A
Complete denture wearers Brushing Effervescent tablets Fusobacteria count No Evidence Yet N/A
Complete denture wearers Brushing No treatment Total anaerobes count No Evidence Yet N/A
Complete denture wearers Combined (brushing + effervescent) Brushing Fusobacteria count No Evidence Yet N/A
Complete denture wearers Combined (brushing + effervescent) No treatment Total anaerobes count No Evidence Yet N/A
Complete denture wearers Combined (brushing + effervescent) No treatment Fusobacteria count No Evidence Yet N/A
Complete denture wearers Combined (brushing + effervescent) Effervescent tablets Fusobacteria count No Evidence Yet N/A
Complete denture wearers Combined (brushing + effervescent) Brushing Total anaerobes count No Evidence Yet N/A
Complete denture wearers Combined (brushing + effervescent) Effervescent tablets Total anaerobes count No Evidence Yet N/A
Complete denture wearers Effervescent tablets No treatment Total anaerobes count No Evidence Yet N/A
Complete denture wearers Effervescent tablets No treatment Fusobacteria count No Evidence Yet N/A
Complete denture wearers Enzyme cleanser Placebo Caregiver-perceived improvement in denture cleanliness No Evidence Yet N/A
Complete denture wearers Silicone cleanser Placebo Visual plaque score (14 days) No Evidence Yet N/A
Complete denture wearers Silicone cleanser Placebo Visual plaque score (2 days) No Evidence Yet N/A
CD007404
Current Version: CD007404.PUB2
Current Evidence Gaps 1 gap
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Downgrade Reason
Patients with histologically confirmed central giant cell granuloma in jaws with normal calcium and PTH serum levels Salmon calcitonin nasal spray 200 IU/day Placebo Proportion of patients with increased lesion volume >10% No Evidence Yet N/A
CD007447
Current Version: CD007447.PUB2
Current Evidence Gaps 12 gaps
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Downgrade Reason
Children or adults Any form of 1-to-1 OHA No OHA Periodontal health: plaque levels Low Not specified
Children or adults Self-management Professional OHA Dental caries No Evidence Yet N/A
Children or adults Any form of 1-to-1 OHA No OHA Periodontal health: gingivitis Very Low Not specified
Children or adults Any form of 1-to-1 OHA No OHA Dental caries Very Low Not specified
Children or adults Enhanced 1-to-1 OHA 1-to-1 OHA Dental caries Very Low Not specified
Children or adults Enhanced 1-to-1 OHA 1-to-1 OHA Periodontal health: gingivitis Very Low Not specified
Children or adults Enhanced 1-to-1 OHA 1-to-1 OHA Periodontal health: plaque levels Very Low Not specified
Children or adults Personalised 1-to-1 OHA Routine 1-to-1 OHA Dental caries Very Low Not specified
Children or adults Personalised 1-to-1 OHA Routine 1-to-1 OHA Periodontal health: gingivitis Very Low Not specified
Children or adults Personalised 1-to-1 OHA Routine 1-to-1 OHA Periodontal health: plaque levels Very Low Not specified
Children or adults Self-management Professional OHA Periodontal health: plaque levels Very Low Not specified
Children or adults Self-management Professional OHA Periodontal health: gingivitis Very Low Not specified
CD007517
Current Version: CD007517.PUB3 | 1 older version
Current Evidence Gaps 6 gaps
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Downgrade Reason
Patients with restorations of dental amalgam Adhesive bonding Control Marginal deterioration of the restoration and fracture of the remaining tooth tissue Low Not specified
Patients with restorations of dental amalgam Adhesive bonding Control Survival of the restoration Low Not specified
Patients with restorations of dental amalgam Adhesive bonding Control Economic data: direct costs of materials and any reported associated indirect costs No Evidence Yet N/A
Patients with restorations of dental amalgam Adhesive bonding Control Post-insertion sensitivity or pain assessed by a validated pain scale No Evidence Yet N/A
Patients with restorations of dental amalgam Adhesive bonding Control Secondary caries, as diagnosed clinically No Evidence Yet N/A
Patients with restorations of dental amalgam Adhesive bonding Control Adverse effects: any event for which the causal relationship between the event and the amalgam restoration is at least a reasonable possibility No Evidence Yet N/A
Previous Versions
CD007517.PUB2
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Studies
Patients requiring Class II restorations in vital posterior teeth Adhesively bonded amalgam Non-bonded amalgam Marginal adaptation - Occlusal at baseline No Evidence Yet -
Patients requiring Class II restorations in vital posterior teeth Adhesively bonded amalgam Non-bonded amalgam Restoration failure at 24 months No Evidence Yet -
Patients requiring Class II restorations in vital posterior teeth Adhesively bonded amalgam Non-bonded amalgam Marginal adaptation - Proximal at 24 months No Evidence Yet -
Patients requiring Class II restorations in vital posterior teeth Adhesively bonded amalgam Non-bonded amalgam Marginal adaptation - Proximal at baseline No Evidence Yet -
Patients requiring Class II restorations in vital posterior teeth Adhesively bonded amalgam Non-bonded amalgam Marginal adaptation - Occlusal at 24 months No Evidence Yet -
CD007592
Current Version: CD007592.PUB2
Current Evidence Gaps 5 gaps
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Downgrade Reason
Children and adolescents Fluoride supplements Other preventive measures Caries increment on permanent tooth surfaces Low Not specified
Children and adolescents Fluoride supplements Topical fluoride Caries increment on permanent tooth surfaces Moderate Not specified
Children and adolescents Fluoride supplements Topical fluoride Caries increment on deciduous tooth surfaces Moderate Not specified
Children and adolescents Fluoride supplements No fluoride supplement Caries increment on permanent tooth surfaces Moderate Not specified
Children and adolescents Fluoride supplements No fluoride supplement Caries increment in permanent teeth Moderate Not specified
Children and adolescents Fluoride supplements Topical fluoride Fluorosis (adverse effect) No Evidence Yet N/A
Children and adolescents Fluoride supplements No fluoride supplement Caries increment in deciduous teeth Very Low Not specified
Children and adolescents Fluoride supplements No fluoride supplement Caries increment on deciduous tooth surfaces Very Low Not specified
Children and adolescents Fluoride supplements No fluoride supplement Fluorosis (adverse effect) Very Low Not specified
CD007693
Current Version: CD007693.PUB2
Current Evidence Gaps 7 gaps
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Downgrade Reason
Children under 6 years Brushing after 12-14 months Brushing before 12-14 months Fluorosis (cross-sectional) No Evidence Yet N/A
Children under 6 years Brushing after 24 months Brushing before 24 months Fluorosis (cross-sectional) No Evidence Yet N/A
Children under 6 years Brushing after 24 months Brushing before 24 months Fluorosis (case-control studies) No Evidence Yet N/A
Children under 6 years Less frequent brushing (<2x/day) More frequent brushing (≥2x/day) Fluorosis No Evidence Yet N/A
Children under 6 years Lower fluoride toothpaste (250-550 ppm) Higher fluoride toothpaste (>1000 ppm) Fluorosis (cross-sectional) No Evidence Yet N/A
Children under 6 years Lower fluoride toothpaste (440-550 ppm) Higher fluoride toothpaste (1000-1450 ppm) Fluorosis (RCTs) No Evidence Yet N/A
Children under 6 years Small/pea-size amount Medium/large amount Fluorosis No Evidence Yet N/A
CD007819
Current Version: CD007819.PUB3 | 1 older version
Current Evidence Gaps 1 gap
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Downgrade Reason
Dental patients Antibacterial containing composites Other active interventions or controls nan No Evidence Yet N/A
Previous Versions
CD007819.PUB2
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Studies
nan nan nan nan No Evidence Yet -
CD007820
Current Version: CD007820.PUB3 | 1 older version
Current Evidence Gaps 1 gap
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Downgrade Reason
nan nan nan nan No Evidence Yet N/A
Previous Versions
CD007820.PUB2
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Studies
nan nan nan nan No Evidence Yet -
CD007859
Current Version: CD007859.PUB5 | 3 older versions
Current Evidence Gaps 22 gaps
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Downgrade Reason
People receiving orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances Conventional NiTi wire Thermoelastic CuNiTi wire Time to alignment Low Not specified
People receiving orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances Conventional NiTi wire Superelastic NiTi wire Alignment rate Low Not specified
People receiving orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances Conventional NiTi wire Superelastic NiTi wire Pain Low Not specified
People receiving orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances Different sizes of nickel-titanium wires Different sizes of nickel-titanium wires Pain Low Not specified
People receiving orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances Multistrand stainless steel wire Wire composed of other materials (conventional StSt, superelastic nickel‐titanium, thermoelastic nickel‐titanium) Pain Low Not specified
People receiving orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances Superelastic NiTi wire Thermoelastic NiTi wire Time to alignment Low Not specified
People receiving orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances Superelastic NiTi wire Thermoelastic NiTi wire Alignment rate Low Not specified
People receiving orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances Single-strand superelastic NiTi wire Coaxial superelastic NiTi wire Alignment rate Moderate Not specified
People receiving orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances Superelastic NiTi wire Thermoelastic NiTi wire Pain Moderate Not specified
People receiving orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances Conventional NiTi wire Superelastic NiTi wire Time to alignment No Evidence Yet N/A
People receiving orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances Conventional NiTi wire Thermoelastic CuNiTi wire Pain No Evidence Yet N/A
People receiving orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances Conventional NiTi wire Thermoelastic CuNiTi wire Root resorption No Evidence Yet N/A
People receiving orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances Conventional NiTi wire Superelastic NiTi wire Root resorption No Evidence Yet N/A
People receiving orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances Different sizes of nickel-titanium wires Different sizes of nickel-titanium wires Root resorption No Evidence Yet N/A
People receiving orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances Different sizes of nickel-titanium wires Different sizes of nickel-titanium wires Alignment rate No Evidence Yet N/A
People receiving orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances Different sizes of nickel-titanium wires Different sizes of nickel-titanium wires Time to alignment No Evidence Yet N/A
People receiving orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances Multistrand stainless steel wire Wire composed of other materials (conventional StSt, superelastic nickel‐titanium, thermoelastic nickel‐titanium) Time to alignment No Evidence Yet N/A
People receiving orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances Multistrand stainless steel wire Wire composed of other materials (conventional StSt, superelastic nickel‐titanium, thermoelastic nickel‐titanium) Root resorption No Evidence Yet N/A
People receiving orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances Single-strand superelastic NiTi wire Coaxial superelastic NiTi wire Root resorption No Evidence Yet N/A
People receiving orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances Single-strand superelastic NiTi wire Coaxial superelastic NiTi wire Pain No Evidence Yet N/A
People receiving orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances Single-strand superelastic NiTi wire Coaxial superelastic NiTi wire Time to alignment No Evidence Yet N/A
People receiving orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances Conventional NiTi wire Thermoelastic CuNiTi wire Alignment rate Very Low Not specified
People receiving orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances Multistrand stainless steel wire Wire composed of other materials (conventional StSt, superelastic nickel‐titanium, thermoelastic nickel‐titanium) Alignment rate Very Low Not specified
People receiving orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances Superelastic NiTi wire Thermoelastic NiTi wire Root resorption Very Low Not specified
Previous Versions
CD007859.PUB4
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Studies
people receiving orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances superelastic NiTi multistrand stainless steel Alignment rate between first molars Low -
people receiving orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances superelastic NiTi conventional NiTi Time to alignment Low -
people receiving orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances thermoelastic NiTi multistrand stainless steel Alignment rate between first molars Low -
people receiving orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances thermoelastic NiTi superelastic NiTi Alignment rate between first molars Low -
people receiving orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances thermoelastic NiTi superelastic NiTi Time to alignment Low -
people receiving orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances thermoelastic NiTi superelastic NiTi Pain day 1 Low -
people receiving orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances coaxial superelastic NiTi single-strand superelastic NiTi Alignment rate between canines Moderate -
people receiving orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances superelastic NiTi multistrand stainless steel Pain day 1 Moderate -
people receiving orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances coaxial superelastic NiTi single-strand superelastic NiTi Root resorption No Evidence Yet -
people receiving orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances coaxial superelastic NiTi single-strand superelastic NiTi Pain No Evidence Yet -
people receiving orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances coaxial superelastic NiTi single-strand superelastic NiTi Time to alignment No Evidence Yet -
people receiving orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances superelastic NiTi multistrand stainless steel Root resorption No Evidence Yet -
people receiving orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances superelastic NiTi multistrand stainless steel Time to alignment No Evidence Yet -
people receiving orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances superelastic NiTi conventional NiTi Root resorption No Evidence Yet -
people receiving orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances thermoelastic NiTi superelastic NiTi Root resorption No Evidence Yet -
people receiving orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances thermoelastic NiTi multistrand stainless steel Time to alignment No Evidence Yet -
people receiving orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances thermoelastic NiTi multistrand stainless steel Pain No Evidence Yet -
people receiving orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances thermoelastic NiTi multistrand stainless steel Root resorption No Evidence Yet -
people receiving orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances superelastic NiTi conventional NiTi Alignment rate between canines Very Low -
people receiving orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances superelastic NiTi conventional NiTi Pain day 1 Very Low -
CD007859.PUB3
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Studies
Adolescents undergoing orthodontic treatment - initial alignment phase Nickel titanium arch wires Multistrand stainless steel initial arch wires Tooth movement Low -
Adolescents undergoing orthodontic treatment - initial alignment phase Either coaxial copper nickel titanium or thermoelastic nickel titanium arch wire Single-strand superelastic nickel titanium arch wire Root Resorption No Evidence Yet -
Adolescents undergoing orthodontic treatment - initial alignment phase Nickel titanium arch wires Multistrand stainless steel initial arch wires Root resorption No Evidence Yet -
Adolescents undergoing orthodontic treatment - initial alignment phase Superelastic nickel titanium arch wires Conventional (stabilised) nickel titanium arch wires Root resorption No Evidence Yet -
Adolescents undergoing orthodontic treatment - initial alignment phase Coaxial nickel titanium arch wire Single-strand superelastic nickel titanium arch wire Alignment (mm/12 weeks) Very Low -
Adolescents undergoing orthodontic treatment - initial alignment phase Copper nickel titanium arch wire Single-strand superelastic nickel titanium arch wire Alignment rate ratio Very Low -
Adolescents undergoing orthodontic treatment - initial alignment phase Nickel titanium arch wires Multistrand stainless steel initial arch wires Pain (VAS) day 1 or day 7 Very Low -
Adolescents undergoing orthodontic treatment - initial alignment phase Superelastic nickel titanium arch wires Conventional (stabilised) nickel titanium arch wires Pain (VAS) day 1 Very Low -
Adolescents undergoing orthodontic treatment - initial alignment phase Superelastic nickel titanium arch wires Conventional (stabilised) nickel titanium arch wires Tooth movement Very Low -
Adolescents undergoing orthodontic treatment - initial alignment phase Thermoelastic nickel titanium arch wire Single-strand superelastic nickel titanium arch wire Pain (VAS) day 1 & day 7 Very Low -
CD007859.PUB2
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Studies
Patients with full arch fixed orthodontic appliances 0.014 inch superelastic NiTi wire 0.015 inch multistrand stainless steel wire Pain intensity (3rd day) Low -
Patients with full arch fixed orthodontic appliances 0.014 inch superelastic NiTi wire 0.015 inch multistrand stainless steel wire Pain intensity (over 14 days) Low -
Patients with full arch fixed orthodontic appliances 0.014 inch superelastic NiTi wire 0.015 inch multistrand stainless steel wire Pain intensity (7th day) Low -
Patients with full arch fixed orthodontic appliances 0.014 inch superelastic NiTi wire 0.015 inch multistrand stainless steel wire Pain intensity (6th day) Low -
Patients with full arch fixed orthodontic appliances 0.014 inch superelastic NiTi wire 0.015 inch multistrand stainless steel wire Pain intensity (5th day) Low -
Patients with full arch fixed orthodontic appliances 0.014 inch superelastic NiTi wire 0.015 inch multistrand stainless steel wire Pain intensity (4th day) Low -
Patients with full arch fixed orthodontic appliances 0.014 inch superelastic NiTi wire 0.015 inch multistrand stainless steel wire Pain intensity (2nd day) Low -
Patients with full arch fixed orthodontic appliances 0.014 inch superelastic NiTi wire 0.015 inch multistrand stainless steel wire Pain intensity (1st day) Low -
Patients with full arch fixed orthodontic appliances 0.014 inch superelastic NiTi wire 0.014 inch NiTi wire Pain intensity (3rd day) Moderate -
Patients with full arch fixed orthodontic appliances 0.014 inch superelastic NiTi wire 0.014 inch NiTi wire Pain intensity (2nd day) Moderate -
Patients with full arch fixed orthodontic appliances 0.014 inch superelastic NiTi wire 0.014 inch NiTi wire Pain intensity (7th day) Moderate -
Patients with full arch fixed orthodontic appliances 0.014 inch superelastic NiTi wire 0.014 inch NiTi wire Pain intensity (6th day) Moderate -
Patients with full arch fixed orthodontic appliances 0.014 inch superelastic NiTi wire 0.014 inch NiTi wire Pain intensity (5th day) Moderate -
Patients with full arch fixed orthodontic appliances 0.014 inch superelastic NiTi wire 0.014 inch NiTi wire Pain intensity (4th day) Moderate -
Patients with full arch fixed orthodontic appliances 0.016 inch CuNiTi wire 0.016 inch NiTi wire Time to alignment of the lower anterior dental arches (days) Moderate -
Patients with full arch fixed orthodontic appliances 0.016 inch superelastic NiTi wire 0.016 inch NiTi wire Alignment rate (contact point movement) Moderate -
CD007868
Current Version: CD007868.PUB3 | 1 older version
Current Evidence Gaps 36 gaps
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Downgrade Reason
Adults aged between 18 and 93 years of age at the start of the study 1000 or 1100 ppm F toothpaste 0 ppm F toothpaste Caries increment (tooth index D3MFT) Low Not specified
Children and adolescents between 5 and 15 years of age at the start of the study 1000 to 1250 ppm F toothpaste 0 ppm F toothpaste Proportion of children developing new caries Low Not specified
Children and adolescents between 5 and 15 years of age at the start of the study 1450 to 1500 ppm F toothpaste 1000 to 1250 ppm F toothpaste Proportion of children developing new caries Low Not specified
Children and adolescents between 5 and 15 years of age at the start of the study 1500 ppm F toothpaste 0 ppm F toothpaste Proportion of children developing new caries Low Not specified
Children and adolescents between 5 and 15 years of age at the start of the study 250 ppm F toothpaste 0 ppm F toothpaste Proportion of children developing new caries Low Not specified
Young children between 1 and 6 years of age at the start of the study 1055 to 1100 ppm F toothpaste 500 to 550 ppm F toothpaste Adverse effects of toothpaste Low Not specified
Young children between 1 and 6 years of age at the start of the study 1055 to 1100 ppm F toothpaste 500 to 550 ppm F toothpaste Caries increment (tooth index d3mft) Low Not specified
Young children between 1 and 6 years of age at the start of the study 1055 to 1100 ppm F toothpaste 500 to 550 ppm F toothpaste Proportion of children developing new caries Low Not specified
Young children between 1 and 6 years of age at the start of the study 1450 ppm F toothpaste 250 ppm F toothpaste Caries increment (surface index d3mfs) Low Not specified
Young children between 1 and 6 years of age at the start of the study 1450 ppm F toothpaste 250 ppm F toothpaste Proportion of children developing new caries Low Not specified
Young children between 1 and 6 years of age at the start of the study 1450 ppm F toothpaste 250 ppm F toothpaste Caries increment (tooth index d3mft) Low Not specified
Young children between 1 and 6 years of age at the start of the study 1500 ppm F toothpaste 0 ppm F toothpaste Adverse effects of toothpaste Low Not specified
Adults aged between 18 and 93 years of age at the start of the study 1000 or 1100 ppm F toothpaste 0 ppm F toothpaste Caries increment (surface index D3MFS) Moderate Not specified
Young children between 1 and 6 years of age at the start of the study 1055 to 1100 ppm F toothpaste 500 to 550 ppm F toothpaste Caries increment (surface index d3mfs) Moderate Not specified
Young children between 1 and 6 years of age at the start of the study 1450 F toothpaste 440 ppm F toothpaste Caries increment (tooth index d3mft) Moderate Not specified
Young children between 1 and 6 years of age at the start of the study 1450 F toothpaste 440 ppm F toothpaste Proportion developing new caries Moderate Not specified
Young children between 1 and 6 years of age at the start of the study 1500 ppm F toothpaste 0 ppm F toothpaste Caries increment (surface index d3fs) Moderate Not specified
Adults aged between 18 and 93 years of age at the start of the study 1000 or 1100 ppm F toothpaste 0 ppm F toothpaste Proportion of adults developing new caries No Evidence Yet N/A
Adults aged between 18 and 93 years of age at the start of the study 1000 or 1100 ppm F toothpaste 0 ppm F toothpaste Adverse effects of toothpaste No Evidence Yet N/A
Children and adolescents between 5 and 15 years of age at the start of the study toothbrushing with higher fluoride concentration toothpaste toothbrushing with lower fluoride concentration toothpaste Adverse effects of toothpaste No Evidence Yet N/A
nan nan nan nan No Evidence Yet N/A
nan nan nan nan No Evidence Yet N/A
nan nan nan nan No Evidence Yet N/A
nan nan nan nan No Evidence Yet N/A
nan nan nan nan No Evidence Yet N/A
nan nan nan nan No Evidence Yet N/A
nan nan nan nan No Evidence Yet N/A
nan nan nan nan No Evidence Yet N/A
nan nan nan nan No Evidence Yet N/A
nan nan nan nan No Evidence Yet N/A
nan nan nan nan No Evidence Yet N/A
nan nan nan nan No Evidence Yet N/A
nan nan nan nan No Evidence Yet N/A
nan nan nan nan No Evidence Yet N/A
nan nan nan nan No Evidence Yet N/A
nan nan nan nan No Evidence Yet N/A
nan nan nan nan No Evidence Yet N/A
nan nan nan nan No Evidence Yet N/A
nan nan nan nan No Evidence Yet N/A
Young children between 1 and 6 years of age at the start of the study 1450 F toothpaste 440 ppm F toothpaste Adverse effects of toothpaste No Evidence Yet N/A
Young children between 1 and 6 years of age at the start of the study 1450 ppm F toothpaste 250 ppm F toothpaste Adverse effects of toothpaste No Evidence Yet N/A
Previous Versions
CD007868.PUB2
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Studies
Children 1055 ppm F toothpaste 550 ppm F toothpaste d(m)fs prevented fraction No Evidence Yet -
Children 1450 ppm F toothpaste 250 ppm F toothpaste d(m)fs prevented fraction No Evidence Yet -
Children 1450 ppm F toothpaste 440 ppm F toothpaste d(m)ft prevented fraction No Evidence Yet -
Children 1500 ppm F toothpaste Placebo d(m)fs prevented fraction No Evidence Yet -
Children Higher F concentration Lower F concentration Proportion developing new caries (primary teeth) No Evidence Yet -
Children and adolescents 1000-1250 ppm F toothpaste Placebo D(M)FS prevented fraction No Evidence Yet -
Children and adolescents 1000-1250 ppm F toothpaste Placebo Proportion developing new caries (permanent teeth) No Evidence Yet -
Children and adolescents 1000-1250 ppm F toothpaste Placebo D(M)FT prevented fraction No Evidence Yet -
Children and adolescents 1450-1500 ppm F toothpaste Placebo Proportion developing new caries (permanent teeth) No Evidence Yet -
Children and adolescents 2400-2800 ppm F toothpaste Placebo D(M)FT prevented fraction No Evidence Yet -
Children and adolescents 2400-2800 ppm F toothpaste Placebo D(M)FS prevented fraction No Evidence Yet -
CD007975
Current Version: CD007975.PUB2
Current Evidence Gaps 1 gap
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Downgrade Reason
nan Topical treatment nan nan No Evidence Yet N/A
CD008001
Current Version: CD008001.PUB2
Current Evidence Gaps 10 gaps
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Downgrade Reason
Edentulous adults receiving implant overdentures in one or both jaws to overcome problems with conventional complete dentures Ball attachment system of mandibular overdentures Magnetic attachment system of mandibular overdentures Re-treatment (repair) (medium term) Very Low Not specified
Edentulous adults receiving implant overdentures in one or both jaws to overcome problems with conventional complete dentures Ball attachment system of mandibular overdentures Bar attachment system of mandibular overdentures Re-treatment (repair) (short term) Very Low Not specified
Edentulous adults receiving implant overdentures in one or both jaws to overcome problems with conventional complete dentures Ball attachment system of mandibular overdentures Magnetic attachment system of mandibular overdentures Costs (medium term) Very Low Not specified
Edentulous adults receiving implant overdentures in one or both jaws to overcome problems with conventional complete dentures Ball attachment system of mandibular overdentures Bar attachment system of mandibular overdentures Success (short term) Very Low Not specified
Edentulous adults receiving implant overdentures in one or both jaws to overcome problems with conventional complete dentures Ball attachment system of mandibular overdentures Bar attachment system of mandibular overdentures Re-treatment (replace) (short term) Very Low Not specified
Edentulous adults receiving implant overdentures in one or both jaws to overcome problems with conventional complete dentures Ball attachment system of mandibular overdentures Magnetic attachment system of mandibular overdentures Success (medium term) Very Low Not specified
Edentulous adults receiving implant overdentures in one or both jaws to overcome problems with conventional complete dentures Ball attachment system of mandibular overdentures Telescopic attachment system of mandibular overdentures Reline of implant overdenture (short term) Very Low Not specified
Edentulous adults receiving implant overdentures in one or both jaws to overcome problems with conventional complete dentures Ball attachment system of mandibular overdentures Telescopic attachment system of mandibular overdentures Matrix replaced (short term) Very Low Not specified
Edentulous adults receiving implant overdentures in one or both jaws to overcome problems with conventional complete dentures Ball attachment system of mandibular overdentures Telescopic attachment system of mandibular overdentures Matrix activated (short term) Very Low Not specified
Edentulous adults receiving implant overdentures in one or both jaws to overcome problems with conventional complete dentures Ball attachment system of mandibular overdentures Telescopic attachment system of mandibular overdentures Patrix replaced (short term) Very Low Not specified
CD008003
Current Version: CD008003.PUB3 | 1 older version
Current Evidence Gaps 1 gap
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Downgrade Reason
Patients with root resorption nan nan nan No Evidence Yet N/A
Previous Versions
CD008003.PUB2
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Studies
Patients with root resorption nan nan nan No Evidence Yet -
CD008050
Current Version: CD008050.PUB2
Current Evidence Gaps 13 gaps
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Downgrade Reason
Cleft lip-cleft palate patients rhBMP-2 with InFuse bone graft Traditional iliac bone graft Alveolar ridge healing No Evidence Yet N/A
Cleft lip-cleft palate patients rhBMP-2 with InFuse bone graft Traditional iliac bone graft Length of hospital stay No Evidence Yet N/A
Cleft lip-cleft palate patients rhBMP-2 with InFuse bone graft Traditional iliac bone graft Periapical film evaluation No Evidence Yet N/A
Cleft lip-cleft palate patients rhBMP-2 with InFuse bone graft Traditional iliac bone graft CT scan evaluation No Evidence Yet N/A
Cleft lip-cleft palate patients rhBMP-2 with InFuse bone graft Traditional iliac bone graft Panorex evaluation No Evidence Yet N/A
Cleft lip-cleft palate patients rhBMP-2 with InFuse bone graft Traditional iliac bone graft Nasal alar base augmentation No Evidence Yet N/A
Cleft lip-cleft palate patients rhBMP-2 with InFuse bone graft Traditional iliac bone graft Loss of graft No Evidence Yet N/A
Cleft lip-cleft palate patients rhBMP-2 with InFuse bone graft Traditional iliac bone graft Oronasal fistula No Evidence Yet N/A
Cleft lip-cleft palate patients rhBMP-2 with InFuse bone graft Traditional iliac bone graft Same day discharge No Evidence Yet N/A
Cleft lip-cleft palate patients Traditional iliac bone graft plus fibrin glue Traditional iliac bone graft Dehiscence No Evidence Yet N/A
Cleft lip-cleft palate patients Traditional iliac bone graft plus fibrin glue Traditional iliac bone graft Infection in wound No Evidence Yet N/A
Cleft lip-cleft palate patients Traditional iliac bone graft plus fibrin glue Traditional iliac bone graft Coronal bone density No Evidence Yet N/A
Cleft lip-cleft palate patients Traditional iliac bone graft plus fibrin glue Traditional iliac bone graft Coronal bone volume No Evidence Yet N/A
Showing 121 to 140 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%)