38% silver diamine fluoride vs placebo or no treatment: Coronal carious lesions arrest
- Population
- Children with coronal carious lesions (primary dentition)
- Intervention
- 38% silver diamine fluoride
- Comparison
- placebo or no treatment
- Outcome
- Coronal carious lesions arrest
One review reported a risk ratio of 2.54 favouring SDF over placebo/no treatment for arresting coronal caries in primary teeth (no CI; ungraded).
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
38% silver diamine fluoride vs Placebo or no treatment Coronal carious lesions arrest · Children with coronal carious lesions (primary dentition) · Primary dentition One review reported a risk ratio of 2.54 favouring SDF over placebo/no treatment for arresting coronal caries in primary teeth (no CI; ungraded). Silver diamine fluoride for managing carious lesions: an umbrella review. (2019) All outcomes | RR 2.54 | 2 studies | GRADE not reported |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Silver diamine fluoride for managing carious lesions: an umbrella review. 2019 All outcomes | June 2018 | 15 | Not applicable |
Related questions
The same intervention and outcome, asked in another population or against another comparator.
- 38% silver diamine fluoride vs Fluoride varnish or placebo · Children with coronal carious lesions (primary dentition) · 1 review
- 38% silver diamine fluoride vs placebo · Children with dental caries in permanent (first) molars · 1 review
- 38% silver diamine fluoride vs Fluoride varnish or atraumatic restorative treatment · Children with coronal carious lesions (primary dentition) · 1 review
- 38% silver diamine fluoride vs Fluoride varnish, glass ionomer cement, or placebo · Children with coronal carious lesions (primary dentition) · 1 review
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.