Question · asked by 1 review
Personalised one-to-one OHA vs Routine one-to-one OHA: Dental caries
- Population
- Children or adults (fit and healthy, or with a well-defined medical condition)
- Intervention
- Personalised one-to-one OHA
- Comparison
- Routine one-to-one OHA
- Outcome
- Dental caries
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Personalised one-to-one OHA vs Routine one-to-one OHA Dental caries · Children or adults (fit and healthy, or with a well-defined medical condition) · 2 months One‐to‐one oral hygiene advice provided in a dental setting for oral health (2018) · Cochrane All outcomes | SoF: 1 study in children between the ages of 1 year and 6 years old reported 'statistically significant (P < 0.05) improvement' for personalised OHA but did not report usable data. Results: Lepore 2011 not estimable… | 1 study · 69 participants | Very low |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| One‐to‐one oral hygiene advice provided in a dental setting for oral health 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes | 2017-11 | Not listed | Not assessed |
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.