evidencegaps
Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

Refine by population, intervention, comparison or outcome
More filters
Evidence found and GRADE certainty

3,323 questions · 5,762 findings · 263 reviews · Dental caries

Sort:Best matchNewestHighest certaintyDownload CSV
No studies found 321 · 5.6%GRADE not reported 4,450 · 77.2%Very low 455 · 7.9%Low 297 · 5.2%Moderate 200 · 3.5%High 39 · 0.7%

Ranked among the 5,000 newest matching findings; add words or filters to narrow the search.

AG + GG genotype (G-allele carriers) of ENAM rs3796704 vs AA genotype of ENAM rs3796704

Dental caries susceptibility · Individuals assessed for dental caries (cases with caries/high caries vs. caries-free or low/very-low-caries controls)

No significant association between AG + GG genotype (G-allele carriers) vs AA genotype of ENAM rs3796704 and dental caries susceptibility (AG + GG vs AA model: OR 0.24, 95% CI 0.03-2.17) in the Ethnicity: Mixed subgroup; certainty not graded.

6 findings from 1 review
Show 3 more findings

Bleaching gel with added remineralising agent (fluoride, calcium, or CPP-ACP) vs Bleaching alone (no remineralising agent)

Whitening (bleaching) efficacy · Demineralised / white-spot-lesion enamel (in vitro specimens)

Low-quality in vitro evidence indicates that adding fluoride or other remineralising agents does not impair the whitening/bleaching effect (ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

GG genotype of LTF rs1126478 vs AA genotype of LTF rs1126478

Dental caries susceptibility · Individuals assessed for dental caries (cases with caries/high caries vs. caries-free or low/very-low-caries controls)

No significant association between GG genotype vs AA genotype of LTF rs1126478 and dental caries susceptibility (GG vs AA model: OR 0.97, 95% CI 0.73-1.29) in the Ethnicity: Asian subgroup; certainty not graded.

5 findings from 1 review
Show 2 more findings

Laser fluorescence (DIAGNOdent 2190/pen) vs Reference standard (histology, excavation, or enhanced visual examination)

Diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity and specificity) for detection of early enamel caries (D1 threshold) · Asymptomatic children, adolescents, or adults presenting for clinical examination (in vivo studies), or extracted teeth of children or…
1 finding from 1 review
  • Fluorescence devices for the detection of dental caries 2020 · Cochrane All outcomes
    Up to 3 months between index test and reference standard (in vivo studies)
    Analysed as a separate index test (coupled forest plot and SROC plot, Figure 22 / Figure 23; Appendix 5); no summary DOR or sensitivity/specificity point reported numerically in the text. 34 datasets, 6842 tooth sites.
    32 studies
    GRADE not reported

TT genotype of AMELX rs17878486 vs CC genotype of AMELX rs17878486

Dental caries susceptibility · Individuals assessed for dental caries (cases with caries/high caries vs. caries-free or low/very-low-caries controls)

No significant association between TT genotype vs CC genotype of AMELX rs17878486 and dental caries susceptibility (TT vs CC model: OR 5.12, 95% CI 0.09-278.85) in the Control group: Caries-free subgroup; certainty not graded.

8 findings from 1 review
Show 5 more findings

Fluoride varnish vs Fissure sealant (resin-based or glass ionomer)

Caries incidence (proportion of enrolled children developing dentin caries, ICDAS 4-6) · Generally healthy children aged 6 to 9 years with at least one fully erupted first permanent molar with deep fissures or early enamel…

Fluoride varnish and fissure sealant did not differ significantly in the proportion of children developing caries at 2 to 3 years (RR 1.12, 95% CI 0.60 to 2.09; 2 RCTs; ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Laser fluorescence (LF; DIAGNOdent) vs Reference standard (histology, excavation, or enhanced visual examination)

Diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity and specificity) for detection of early enamel caries (D1 threshold) · Asymptomatic children, adolescents, or adults presenting for clinical examination (in vivo studies), or extracted teeth of children or…
1 finding from 1 review
  • Fluorescence devices for the detection of dental caries 2020 · Cochrane All outcomes
    Up to 3 months between index test and reference standard (in vivo studies)
    Analysed as a separate index test (coupled forest plot and SROC plot, Figure 22 / Figure 23; Appendix 5); no summary DOR or sensitivity/specificity point reported numerically in the text. 46 datasets, 7316 tooth sites.
    45 studies
    GRADE not reported

CT + TT genotype (T-allele carriers) of AMELX rs2106416 vs CC genotype of AMELX rs2106416

Dental caries susceptibility · Individuals assessed for dental caries (cases with caries/high caries vs. caries-free or low/very-low-caries controls)

No significant association between CT + TT genotype (T-allele carriers) vs CC genotype of AMELX rs2106416 and dental caries susceptibility (CT + TT vs CC model: OR 0.59, 95% CI 0.15-2.31) in the Age group: Children subgroup; certainty not graded.

3 findings from 1 review

Tooth bleaching (carbamide or hydrogen peroxide; home and/or in-office) vs No bleaching (untreated control)

Colour change / camouflage of white spot lesions (reduction of colour disparity between carious and sound enamel) · Permanent teeth with post-orthodontic white spot lesions (orthodontic patients and in vitro enamel specimens)

Bleaching may diminish colour disparities and camouflage post-orthodontic white spot lesions, but the certainty of the evidence is very low; the findings could neither support nor refute bleaching.

1 finding from 1 review

Laser/light-activated bleaching vs Conventional (non-laser) bleaching with hydrogen or carbamide peroxide

Enamel microhardness / caries susceptibility · Permanent teeth / enamel specimens (in vitro)

Low-quality in vitro evidence found no support for adding lasers to in-office bleaching; laser-activated bleaching did not appear to affect enamel microhardness or caries risk versus conventional bleaching (ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

G allele of LTF rs1126478 vs A allele of LTF rs1126478

Dental caries susceptibility · Individuals assessed for dental caries (cases with caries/high caries vs. caries-free or low/very-low-caries controls)

No significant association between G allele vs A allele of LTF rs1126478 and dental caries susceptibility (G vs A model: OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.87-1.10); certainty not graded.

5 findings from 1 review
Show 2 more findings

Red fluorescence devices (DIAGNOdent, DIAGNOdent pen, MidWest; excitation wavelength >655 nm) vs Reference standard (histology, excavation, or enhanced visual examination)

Diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) for detection of early enamel caries (D1 threshold) · Asymptomatic children, adolescents, or adults presenting for clinical examination (in vivo studies), or extracted teeth of children or…
1 finding from 1 review

Illicit drug use vs People who do not use drugs

DMFT/DMFS index (dental caries experience) · People who use drugs (PWUD): methamphetamine, heroin, opiate, cannabis and cocaine users

Illicit drug use was associated with substantially higher odds of dental caries experience (DMFT) (pooled OR 4.11, 95% CI 2.07-8.15; 7 studies; high heterogeneity I2=90.5%; ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review