Search

What do systematic reviews say?

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

3,032 questions · 3,358 findings · 190 reviews · Oral Health · related questions CL0289

No studies found 599 · 17.8%GRADE not reported 1,759 · 52.4%Very low 612 · 18.2%Low 269 · 8%Moderate 107 · 3.2%High 12 · 0.4%

HEMA/EGDMA-based desensitizer vs Calcium phosphate agent (e.g., CPP-ACP, Ca/P-PILP, niobophosphate)

Immediate (24 h) resin-dentin bond strength (MPa) · Artificial caries-affected dentin (ACAD) in extracted permanent human teeth (in vitro)

In the Self-Etch adhesive + chemical ACAD protocol network, HEMA vs Calcium Phosphate showed no significant difference in 24 h bond strength (MD 0.360, 95% CI -5.589 to 6.309; Moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) vs Calcium hydroxide (CH)

Overall success (composite of clinical and radiographic success) · Vital permanent teeth (mature or immature) with deep or extremely deep caries and asymptomatic pulp or reversible pulpitis, undergoing…

Mineral trioxide aggregate shows higher odds of clinical and radiographic success than calcium hydroxide (OR 3.05, 95% CI 1.70 to 5.45; ungraded subgroup analysis).

1 finding from 1 review

Flavonoids (e.g., quercetin, proanthocyanidin) vs HEMA/EGDMA-based desensitizer

Immediate (24 h) resin-dentin bond strength (MPa) · Artificial caries-affected dentin (ACAD) in extracted permanent human teeth (in vitro)

In the Self-Etch adhesive + chemical ACAD protocol network, Flavonoids vs HEMA showed no significant difference in 24 h bond strength (MD 2.705, 95% CI -5.654 to 11.063; Moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Mesoporous silica (SiO2) vs No biomimetic remineralization (control)

Immediate (24 h) resin-dentin bond strength (MPa) · Artificial caries-affected dentin (ACAD) in extracted permanent human teeth (in vitro)

In the Self-Etch adhesive + chemical ACAD protocol network, Silica vs Control showed no significant difference in 24 h bond strength (MD 0.840, 95% CI -5.270 to 6.950; Low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Self-assembling/remineralizing peptide (e.g., P11-4, PAA-PASP) vs Flavonoids (e.g., quercetin, proanthocyanidin)

Immediate (24 h) resin-dentin bond strength (MPa) · Artificial caries-affected dentin (ACAD) in extracted permanent human teeth (in vitro)

In the Etch-and-Rinse adhesive + biological ACAD protocol network, Peptide showed 9.857 MPa higher 24 h bond strength than Flavonoids (MD 9.857, 95% CI 2.588 to 17.126; Moderate certainty).

2 findings from 1 review

Mesoporous silica (SiO2) vs Calcium phosphate agent (e.g., CPP-ACP, Ca/P-PILP, niobophosphate)

Immediate (24 h) resin-dentin bond strength (MPa) · Artificial caries-affected dentin (ACAD) in extracted permanent human teeth (in vitro)

In the Self-Etch adhesive + chemical ACAD protocol network, Silica vs Calcium Phosphate showed no significant difference in 24 h bond strength (MD -0.699, 95% CI -7.633 to 6.234; Moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

HEMA/EGDMA-based desensitizer vs Fluoride agent (e.g., NaF/SDF/KF/CaF2)

Immediate (24 h) resin-dentin bond strength (MPa) · Artificial caries-affected dentin (ACAD) in extracted permanent human teeth (in vitro)

In the Self-Etch adhesive + chemical ACAD protocol network, HEMA vs Fluorine showed no significant difference in 24 h bond strength (MD 2.500, 95% CI -2.603 to 7.603; Low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Flavonoids (e.g., quercetin, proanthocyanidin) vs Calcium-based agent

Immediate (24 h) resin-dentin bond strength (MPa) · Artificial caries-affected dentin (ACAD) in extracted permanent human teeth (in vitro)

In the Self-Etch adhesive + chemical ACAD protocol network, Flavonoids vs Calcium showed no significant difference in 24 h bond strength (MD 5.728, 95% CI -2.442 to 13.897; Moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Mesoporous silica (SiO2) vs HEMA/EGDMA-based desensitizer

Immediate (24 h) resin-dentin bond strength (MPa) · Artificial caries-affected dentin (ACAD) in extracted permanent human teeth (in vitro)

In the Self-Etch adhesive + chemical ACAD protocol network, Silica vs HEMA showed no significant difference in 24 h bond strength (MD -1.059, 95% CI -9.024 to 6.906; Moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Flavonoids (e.g., quercetin, proanthocyanidin) vs Mesoporous silica (SiO2)

Immediate (24 h) resin-dentin bond strength (MPa) · Artificial caries-affected dentin (ACAD) in extracted permanent human teeth (in vitro)

In the Self-Etch adhesive + chemical ACAD protocol network, Flavonoids vs Silica showed no significant difference in 24 h bond strength (MD 3.764, 95% CI -5.241 to 12.769; Moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Physiotherapy (tongue-spatula jaw exercises) vs No active treatment (control)

Maximal mouth opening (interincisal distance) · People of any age with a confirmed diagnosis, by clinical examination and biopsy, of oral submucous fibrosis (OSF)

It is very uncertain whether physiotherapy (tongue-spatula jaw exercises) changes maximal mouth opening (interincisal distance) compared with no active treatment (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Thermoelastic copper NiTi (CuNiTi) arch wire vs Conventional (stabilised) NiTi arch wire

Time to next/working arch wire · People receiving orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances (upper and/or lower full arch)

Thermoelastic copper NiTi (CuNiTi) arch wire showed no clear difference in time to next/working arch wire compared with conventional NiTi arch wire; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Minimally invasive caries removal (MIT): selective removal to soft dentin, self-limiting chemomechanical removal, or partial/incomplete caries removal vs Conventional caries removal (CT): selective removal to firm dentin, stepwise excavation, or complete caries removal

Pulp exposure rate · Patients with deep carious lesions in permanent (mainly posterior) teeth

Minimally invasive caries removal was associated with a lower mean pulp exposure rate than conventional removal (1.2% vs 8.1%), but the difference was not statistically significant (Wilcoxon, p = 0.068); certainty of evidence was not graded.

1 finding from 1 review

Facemask (RME) or modified facemask vs Other non-surgical orthodontic treatments (mini maxillary protractor, Pushing Splints, modified tandem, Reverse Forsus, reverse Twin Block, reverse chin cup, tongue appliance, Frankel III)

Perceived need for surgery in adulthood · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Bone-anchored intermaxillary traction (BAIMT) vs Removable mandibular retractor (RMR)

Overjet · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or younger) with prominent lower front teeth (Class III malocclusion)

Bone-anchored intermaxillary traction (BAIMT) led to higher overjet compared with removable mandibular retractor (RMR); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review