Question · asked by 1 review

38% SDF solution (applied biannually) vs 12% SDF solution (applied biannually): Arrest of advanced cavitated carious lesions on any coronal surface

Population
Preschool children with advanced cavitated carious lesions on any coronal surface (primary teeth)
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 (applied biannually) was more effective than 12% SDF solution (applied biannually) for arrest or reversal of cavitated coronal carious lesions (RR 1.3, 95% CI 1.21 to 1.41; high certainty).

What each review found

Include earlier review versions
No studies found 0 · 0%GRADE not reported 0 · 0%Very low 0 · 0%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 0 · 0%High 4 · 100%
FindingEffectStudiesGRADE certainty
38% SDF solution (applied biannually) vs 12% SDF solution (applied biannually)
Arrest of advanced cavitated carious lesions on any coronal surface · Preschool children with advanced cavitated carious lesions on any coronal surface (primary teeth) · 12 mo, Dental practice (professionally applied or prescribed nonrestorative caries treatments; parallel and split-mouth RCTs)
38% SDF solution (applied biannually) was more effective than 12% SDF solution (applied biannually) for arrest or reversal of cavitated coronal carious lesions (RR 1.3, 95% CI 1.21 to 1.41; high certainty).
Nonrestorative Treatments for Caries: Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis. (2019) All outcomes
RR 1.3 [1.21, 1.41]1 study · 799 participantsHigh
38% SDF solution (applied biannually) vs 12% SDF solution (applied biannually)
Arrest of advanced cavitated carious lesions on any coronal surface · Preschool children with advanced cavitated carious lesions on any coronal surface (primary teeth) · 24 mo, Dental practice (professionally applied or prescribed nonrestorative caries treatments; parallel and split-mouth RCTs)
38% SDF solution (applied biannually) was more effective than 12% SDF solution (applied biannually) for arrest or reversal of cavitated coronal carious lesions (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.21 to 1.38; high certainty).
Nonrestorative Treatments for Caries: Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis. (2019) All outcomes
RR 1.29 [1.21, 1.38]1 study · 799 participantsHigh
38% SDF solution (applied biannually) vs 12% SDF solution (applied biannually)
Arrest of advanced cavitated carious lesions on any coronal surface · Preschool children with advanced cavitated carious lesions on any coronal surface (primary teeth) · 30 mo, Dental practice (professionally applied or prescribed nonrestorative caries treatments; parallel and split-mouth RCTs)
38% SDF solution (applied biannually) was more effective than 12% SDF solution (applied biannually) for arrest or reversal of cavitated coronal carious lesions (RR 1.29, 95% CI 1.21 to 1.38; high certainty).
Nonrestorative Treatments for Caries: Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis. (2019) All outcomes
RR 1.29 [1.21, 1.38]1 study · 799 participantsHigh
38% SDF solution (applied biannually) vs 12% SDF solution (applied biannually)
Arrest of advanced cavitated carious lesions on any coronal surface · Preschool children with advanced cavitated carious lesions on any coronal surface (primary teeth) · 18 mo, Dental practice (professionally applied or prescribed nonrestorative caries treatments; parallel and split-mouth RCTs)
38% SDF solution (applied biannually) was more effective than 12% SDF solution (applied biannually) for arrest or reversal of cavitated coronal carious lesions (RR 1.34, 95% CI 1.25 to 1.43; high certainty).
Nonrestorative Treatments for Caries: Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis. (2019) All outcomes
RR 1.34 [1.25, 1.43]1 study · 799 participantsHigh

Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.

The reviews

ReviewSearched up toIncluded studiesAMSTAR 2
Nonrestorative Treatments for Caries: Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis.
2019 All outcomes
June 201754Critically Low / Critically Low

The same intervention and outcome, asked in another population or against another comparator.

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.