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

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.

Chlorhexidine (mouthrinse or gel), as part of oral hygiene care vs placebo or usual care

All‐cause mortality · Critically ill patients (adults and children) receiving mechanical ventilation in ICU

Chlorhexidine (mouthrinse or gel), as part of oral hygiene care showed no clear difference in mortality compared with placebo or usual care (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Amoxicillin + metronidazole + SRP vs SRP

Clinical attachment level (CAL) · Adults with periodontitis (chronic and aggressive)

It is very uncertain whether amoxicillin + metronidazole + SRP changes clinical attachment level (CAL) compared with SRP (very low certainty).

2 findings from 1 review

Bleaching vs No bleaching (untreated control)

Caries susceptibility, enamel demineralisation, erosion, or microhardness · Permanent teeth or extracted human teeth with artificial lesions

The laboratory studies did not find increased susceptibility to caries or enamel demineralisation, but no firm conclusions can be drawn because of high risk of bias.

1 finding from 1 review

Counter-stimulation or distraction vs Conventional treatment

Completion of dental treatment · Children and adolescents having dental treatment under local anaesthetic without general anaesthesia

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Hypnosis vs Conventional treatment

Acceptance of LA · Children and adolescents having dental treatment under local anaesthetic without general anaesthesia

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

TT genotype of AMELX rs946252 vs CC + CT genotype of AMELX rs946252

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 + CT genotype of AMELX rs946252 and dental caries susceptibility (TT vs CC + CT model: OR 0.73, 95% CI 0.19-2.87) in the Control group: Caries-free subgroup; certainty not graded.

4 findings from 1 review
Show 1 more finding

Antimicrobial mouthwash and/or nasal spray (alone or in combination), any concentration, frequency or dosage vs No treatment or saline or water

COVID-19 viral content of aerosol (when present) · Patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 infection

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Clobetasol propionate 0.025% microspheres vs Clobetasol propionate 0.025% ointment

Clinical resolution · People with symptomatic, biopsy-confirmed oral lichen planus (OLP); not concurrently receiving other OLP treatment

Clobetasol propionate 0.025% microspheres showed no clear difference in clinical resolution compared with clobetasol propionate 0.025% ointment; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

No additional acid etching (etch-and-rinse adhesive alone) after Er,Cr:YSGG preparation vs Prior acid etching before etch-and-rinse adhesive after Er,Cr:YSGG preparation

Incidence of microleakage · Er,Cr:YSGG laser-prepared cavities restored with etch-and-rinse adhesive systems (in vitro)

Prior acid etching with etch-and-rinse adhesives did not significantly change microleakage after Er,Cr:YSGG preparation (RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.63-2.22; ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Resin-based fissure sealant plus fluoride varnish vs Fluoride varnish

Number of visits to the dentist for repair of sealant or fluoride varnish application · Children and adolescents (general population, aged under 20 years)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Counter-stimulation and distraction (combined) vs Conventional treatment

Adverse effects · Children and adolescents having dental treatment under local anaesthetic without general anaesthesia

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Metronidazole + SRP vs Amoxicillin + metronidazole + SRP

Adverse events · Adults with periodontitis (chronic and aggressive)

Metronidazole + SRP showed no clear difference in adverse events compared with amoxicillin + metronidazole + SRP; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

T allele of AMELX rs6639060 vs C allele of AMELX rs6639060

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 T allele vs C allele of AMELX rs6639060 and dental caries susceptibility (T vs C model: OR 1.08, 95% CI 0.63-1.85) in the Ethnicity: Caucasian subgroup; certainty not graded.

2 findings from 1 review

Clinical examination with 24-month recall vs Clinical examination with 6-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 24-month recall showed no clear difference in oral health attitudes (1-7 scale) compared with clinical examination with 6-month recall; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Amoxicillin + metronidazole + SRP vs Clarithromycin + SRP

Adverse events · Adults with aggressive periodontitis

Amoxicillin + metronidazole + SRP showed no clear difference in adverse events compared with clarithromycin + SRP; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Electrical counter-stimulation device (DentalVibe) vs Conventional treatment (no stimulation)

Successful LA/painless treatment · Children and adolescents having dental treatment under local anaesthetic without general anaesthesia

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Gastroesophageal or laryngopharyngeal reflux (GERD/LPR) vs Healthy controls

Salivary function impairment (buffering capacity, flow rate, oral pH) · Adults with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) or laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR)

Reflux is associated with impaired salivary function (notably reduced buffering capacity) as a proposed pathophysiological mechanism, based on several ungraded studies.

1 finding from 1 review
  • Laryngopharyngeal reflux, gastroesophageal reflux and dental disorders: A systematic review. 2020 All outcomes
    Adult patients in gastroenterology, ENT and dental clinical settings
    Mixed/controversial salivary findings: reduced salivary buffering capacity supported in three studies (Correa, Holbrook, Filipi) with low oral pH and reduced flow as additional factors in GERD patients, but Meurman and Schroeder found no significant salivary abnormalities; no pooled estimate.
    6 studies
    GRADE not reported