38% SDF solution (applied biannually) vs 12% SDF solution (applied biannually): Arrest of advanced cavitated carious lesions on any coronal surface
- Population
- Primary teeth with advanced cavitated carious lesions on any coronal surface
- Intervention
- 38% SDF solution (applied biannually)
- Comparison
- 12% SDF solution (applied biannually)
- Outcome
- Arrest of advanced cavitated carious lesions on any coronal surface
38% SDF solution biannually compared with 12% SDF solution biannually: RR 1.29 (95% CI 1.21 to 1.38); High certainty.
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
38% SDF solution biannually vs 12% SDF solution biannually Arrest of advanced cavitated carious lesions on any coronal surface · Primary teeth with advanced cavitated carious lesions on any coronal surface · 30 months 38% SDF solution biannually compared with 12% SDF solution biannually: RR 1.29 (95% CI 1.21 to 1.38); High certainty. Nonrestorative Treatments for Caries: Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis. (2018) All outcomes | RR 1.29 [1.21, 1.38] | 1 study · 799 participants | High |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nonrestorative Treatments for Caries: Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis. 2019 All outcomes | June 2017 | 54 | Critically Low / Critically Low |
Related questions
The same intervention and outcome, asked in another population or against another comparator.
- 38% SDF solution (applied biannually) vs 12% SDF solution (applied biannually) · Preschool children with advanced cavitated carious lesions on any coronal surface… · 1 review
- 38% SDF solution (applied biannually) vs 38% SDF solution (applied annually) · Preschool children with advanced cavitated carious lesions on any coronal surface… · 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.