Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

1,809 questions · 1,956 findings · 194 reviews

No studies found 422 · 21.6%GRADE not reported 427 · 21.8%Very low 353 · 18%Low 397 · 20.3%Moderate 293 · 15%High 64 · 3.3%

Theory-based oral health education/promotion interventions (HBM, TPB, SCT, HAPA, TTM, PMT, SOC, PRECEDE-PROCEED, MI) vs Control (waitlist, routine/standard oral health education, or minimal intervention)

Oral health behaviour (1-9 scale) · school‐age children and adolescents

Theory-based interventions significantly improved oral health behavior (SMD 2.58; low certainty), with very high heterogeneity.

1 finding from 1 review

Theory-based oral health education/promotion interventions (HBM, TPB, SCT, HAPA, TTM, PMT, SOC, PRECEDE-PROCEED, MI) vs Control (waitlist, routine/standard oral health education, or minimal intervention)

Oral health knowledge (1-9 scale) · school‐age children and adolescents

Theory-based interventions significantly improved oral health knowledge (SMD 1.09; low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Oral DHEA vs control subgrouped by differing routes of administration

Side effects: acne ‐ oral administration · Women in the peri‐ or postmenopausal phase

It is very uncertain whether oral DHEA changes side effects: acne ‐ oral administration compared with control subgrouped by differing routes of administration (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Sociodemographic and behavioural factors (older age, lower education, lower income, poor oral hygiene/brushing, smoking, disadvantaged/slum residence, sex) vs Referent groups (younger, higher education/income, better oral hygiene, non-slum residence)

Determinants of oral diseases · Adult residents of slums and non-slum urban settings of LMICs

Age, education, income, oral-hygiene behaviour, dental-visit pattern and slum/disadvantaged residence are associated with oral disease; gender effects are disease-specific; ungraded.

1 finding from 1 review

Gene sequencing (GS) applied to diagnose/manage oral conditions (predominantly 16S rRNA next-generation sequencing of the oral microbiome; also genome-wide/whole-genome sequencing) vs Negligible ('abysmal') effect of gene sequencing; no separate comparator arm (within-sample event contrast in the forest plots)

Noticeable impact of gene sequencing on diagnosing/managing oral conditions · Human patients (any age) with oral-cavity related disorders (e.g. dental caries, periodontitis, gingivitis, peri-implant mucositis,…

Pooled across 8 clinical trials, gene sequencing had a statistically significant impact on diagnosing/managing oral-cavity disorders (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.46-0.54); certainty not GRADE-rated.

2 findings from 1 review

Gene sequencing (GS) applied to diagnose/manage oral conditions (predominantly 16S rRNA next-generation sequencing of the oral microbiome; also genome-wide/whole-genome sequencing) vs Negligible ('abysmal') effect of gene sequencing; no separate comparator arm (within-sample event contrast in the forest plots)

Reduction in occurrence of oral conditions · Human patients (any age) with oral-cavity related disorders (e.g. dental caries, periodontitis, gingivitis, peri-implant mucositis,…

Pooled across 8 clinical trials, gene sequencing was associated with a statistically significant risk difference for impact on oral-cavity disorders (RD -0.29, 95% CI -0.32 to -0.26); certainty not GRADE-rated.

1 finding from 1 review

Glucosamine sulfate (oral) vs ibuprofen

Extraoral masticatory muscle tenderness (number of tender sites), change from baseline · Adults (>18 years) with temporomandibular joint osteoarthritis (TMJ OA) diagnosed by RDC/TMD or compatible criteria

Glucosamine sulfate (oral) showed no clear difference in extraoral masticatory muscle tenderness (number of tender sites),… compared with ibuprofen (oral); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Oral care protocol vs usual care or no treatment

Oral mucositis (moderate to severe) · Patients with cancer receiving radiotherapy, chemotherapy or targeted therapies

Oral care protocol showed no clear difference in oral mucositis (moderate to severe) compared with no treatment/usual care; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Oral care protocol vs usual care or no treatment

Oral mucositis (severe) · Patients with cancer receiving radiotherapy, chemotherapy or targeted therapies

Oral care protocol showed no clear difference in oral mucositis (severe) compared with no treatment/usual care; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Combined oral and intravenous vs oral or intravenous alone

Wound infection · colorectal surgery

Combined oral and intravenous leads to lower surgical wound infection: oral + iv versus iv alone compared with oral or intravenous alone (high certainty).

2 findings from 1 review

Oral care vs No oral care

Outcome not reported · Residents of nursing homes and other long-term care facilities

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Prophylactic aciclovir (oral or intravenous) vs Prophylactic valaciclovir (oral)

Presence/absence of HSV oral lesions · Patients being treated for cancer (predominantly haematological malignancies)

Prophylactic aciclovir (oral or intravenous) showed no clear difference in presence/absence of HSV oral lesions compared with prophylactic valaciclovir (oral); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Prophylactic aciclovir (oral or intravenous) vs Prophylactic valaciclovir (oral)

Cost of oral care · Patients being treated for cancer (predominantly haematological malignancies)
1 finding from 1 review

Aciclovir (oral or intravenous) for treatment vs placebo

Cost of oral care · Patients being treated for cancer with established oral HSV infection (bone marrow transplant recipients / immunocompromised)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Leukemia (oral health status) vs None (descriptive; compared by treatment location)

Oral health problems (mucositis, caries, candidiasis) · Children with leukemia in the United Arab Emirates

One study found oral problems in 60% of children with leukemia, most common during maintenance therapy and among those treated locally (narrative synthesis; not GRADE-rated).

1 finding from 1 review