evidencegaps
Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

3,556 questions · 10,375 findings · 429 reviews · All outcomes

Sort:Best matchNewestHighest certaintyDownload CSV
No studies found 1,344 · 13%GRADE not reported 6,832 · 65.9%Very low 1,228 · 11.8%Low 613 · 5.9%Moderate 290 · 2.8%High 68 · 0.7%

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

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.

4 findings from 1 review
Show 1 more finding

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

One type of dental check-up (e.g. examination plus scale and polish) vs A different type of dental check-up (e.g. examination only) at the same fixed recall interval

Outcome not reported · Children and adults receiving dental check-ups in primary care, irrespective of oral disease risk

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

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.

4 findings from 1 review
Show 1 more finding

Doxycycline + SRP vs Amoxicillin + metronidazole + SRP

Clinical attachment level (CAL) · Adults with aggressive periodontitis

Doxycycline + SRP showed no clear difference in clinical attachment level (CAL) compared with amoxicillin + metronidazole + SRP; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

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

Clinical examination with risk-based recall vs Clinical examination with 24-month recall

Periodontal disease: gingival bleeding (percentage of sites) · Dentate adults (aged 18 years and older) receiving dental check-ups in UK general dental practices (regular attenders)

Clinical examination with risk-based recall showed no clear difference in periodontal disease: gingival bleeding (percentage of sites) compared with clinical examination with 24-month recall (high certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Any antimicrobial mouthwash and/or nasal spray (alone or in combination), at any concentration, delivered to healthcare workers, with or without the same intervention given to the patients with COVID-19 vs No treatment or saline or water

Anosmia (or disturbance in sense of smell) · Healthcare workers (HCWs) treating patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 infection

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Clinical examination with risk-based recall vs Clinical examination with 24-month recall

Oral health attitudes (1-7 scale) · Dentate adults (aged 18 years and older) receiving dental check-ups in UK general dental practices (regular attenders)

Clinical examination with risk-based recall showed no clear difference in oral health attitudes (1-7 scale) compared with clinical examination with 24-month recall; GRADE not reported.

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