Search

What do systematic reviews say?

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

1,333 questions · 1,344 findings · 217 reviews · All outcomes

No studies found 1,344 · 100%GRADE not reported 0 · 0%Very low 0 · 0%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%

Any of the interventions (CR, SE, SW, sealing with sealant materials, Hall Technique, or NRCC) vs Each other, placebo, or no treatment

Subjective evaluation of the treatments by participants · Children and/or adults with permanent or primary teeth, vital (sensitive) pulps, and cavitated or dentine carious lesions conventionally…

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Blood and saliva analysis (biomarker tests) vs Surgical or punch biopsy with histological assessment

Outcome not reported · Adults (aged 16 years or over) presenting to primary or secondary care with clinically evident suspicious or innocuous oral lesions

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

COE with blood/salivary (biomarker) analysis vs COE with vital rinsing (toluidine blue/tolonium chloride)

Outcome not reported · Apparently healthy adults not reporting symptoms of OPMD or OSCC, attending an organised screening or surveillance programme, or screened…

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

ARP with allograft plus synthetic cell-binding peptide P-15 vs ARP with allograft without P-15

Implant failure rate · Adults aged 18 years or older, in good general health (including well-controlled systemic disease), requiring extraction of one or more…

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Quantitative light-induced fluorescence (QLF) vs Histological validation (in vitro) or cavity preparation/biopsy (in vivo)

Occlusal caries detection accuracy · Human permanent posterior teeth (premolars and molars) in patients, occlusal (pit-and-fissure) surfaces

No eligible QLF studies met the meta-analysis inclusion criteria (candidate QLF studies were identified but none had acceptable index/reference tests and reporting quality).

1 finding from 1 review

Intensive periodontal treatment (subgingival SRP with or without other periodontal treatment) vs No treatment (no periodontal treatment)

Proportion of participants diagnosed with hypertension at trial completion · Adults (any age/sex) with chronic periodontitis (>=5 teeth remaining; PPD >4 mm), with or without hypertension

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Double primary (canine and first molar) tooth extraction vs Single primary (canine) tooth extraction

Costs and cost‐effectiveness · Young people aged 9 to 14 years diagnosed with one or both palatally displaced permanent maxillary canines (PDC)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

COE with blood/salivary (biomarker) analysis vs Conventional oral examination (COE) alone

Outcome not reported · Apparently healthy adults not reporting symptoms of OPMD or OSCC, attending an organised screening or surveillance programme, or screened…

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

ARP with alloplast plus barrier membrane vs ARP with alloplast without membrane

Need for additional augmentation prior to implant placement · Adults aged 18 years or older, in good general health (including well-controlled systemic disease), requiring extraction of one or more…

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Double primary (canine and first molar) tooth extraction vs Single primary (canine) tooth extraction

Reported improvement in the position of the ectopic canine measured from radiographs · Young people aged 9 to 14 years diagnosed with one or both palatally displaced permanent maxillary canines (PDC)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Double primary (canine and first molar) tooth extraction vs Single primary (canine) tooth extraction

Patient‐reported outcome measures (PROMs) · Young people aged 9 to 14 years diagnosed with one or both palatally displaced permanent maxillary canines (PDC)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Er:YAG laser (erbium-doped:yttrium-aluminum-garnet) vs Placebo (placebo laser or placebo agent) or no treatment

Outcome not reported · Patients aged above 12 years with self-reported tooth hypersensitivity confirmed on clinical evaluation

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review
  • Laser therapy for dentinal hypersensitivity 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes
    We did not find any eligible study to evaluate erbium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet (Er:YAG) or carbon dioxide (CO2) laser compared with placebo/no treatment.
    0 studies
    No studies found

Electrical conductance devices (electronic caries monitor (ECM) and/or CarieScan Pro), used as an adjunct to clinical oral examination vs Reference standard: histology or enhanced visual examination (with or without radiographs)

Outcome not reported · Teeth with previously applied restorations (secondary caries) or pit and fissure sealants; target condition = non-cavitated enamel caries.

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review
  • Electrical conductance for the detection of dental caries 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes
    Up to 3 months between index test and reference standard (in vivo studies)
    No eligible studies. 'No included studies reported inclusion criteria of previously applied restorations or pit and fissure sealants' (a planned subgroup).
    0 studies
    No studies found

ARP with alloplast vs Extraction alone

Changes in bucco-lingual/palatal width of alveolar ridge (mm) · Adults aged 18 years or older, in good general health (including well-controlled systemic disease), requiring extraction of one or more…

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

COE with light-based detection (e.g. ViziLite Plus, Microlux/DL, VELscope, Identafi 3000) vs Reference standard: examination and clinical evaluation by a physician/clinician with specialist knowledge or training (long-term follow-up accepted for those screened negative)

Outcome not reported · Apparently healthy adults not reporting symptoms of OPMD or OSCC, attending an organised screening or surveillance programme, or screened…

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Direct composite resin restoration vs Amalgam restoration

Allergic reaction · People with permanent or adult posterior teeth requiring restoration (parallel-group trials involved children aged 6 to 12 years)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review