Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

94 questions · 111 findings · 4 reviews

No studies found 35 · 31.5%GRADE not reported 31 · 27.9%Very low 34 · 30.6%Low 6 · 5.4%Moderate 5 · 4.5%High 0 · 0%

Silver diamine fluoride (SDF) vs Atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) with glass ionomer cement (GIC) or glass ionomer material

Adverse effects · Children and adults (with or without carious lesions)
1 finding from 1 review

Silver diamine fluoride (SDF) vs Atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) with glass ionomer cement (GIC) or glass ionomer material

Aesthetics · Children and adults (with or without carious lesions)
1 finding from 1 review

38% SDF (indirect pulp capping) vs Resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC)

Secondary prevention of caries · children with deep occlusal carious lesions in permanent molars

No significant difference in secondary caries prevention was reported; no effect estimate or GRADE rating was reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Silver diamine fluoride (SDF) vs Other methods (pooled: ART/glass ionomer cement, nano-silver fluoride, sodium fluoride varnish, placebo)

Adverse effects (tooth staining and other side effects) · Children and adults with active dental caries (aged 1-50; mostly preschool/school children with primary dentition)

SDF commonly causes black staining of arrested lesions; only mild, transient adverse events were reported, with no major adverse events (ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

38% SDF plus potassium iodide (KI) (indirect pulp capping) vs Resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC)

Secondary prevention of caries · children with deep occlusal carious lesions in permanent molars

No significant difference in secondary caries prevention was reported; no effect estimate or GRADE rating was reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Silver diamine fluoride (SDF) plus fluoride varnish vs Sealants plus fluoride varnish (with or without restorations)

Adverse effects · Children and adults (with or without carious lesions)
1 finding from 1 review

38% SDF every 12 months vs water every 12 months

new carious lesions or fillings at fissure-site level · children with caries in permanent molars

SDF had a 52% preventative fraction at fissure-site level; no pooled estimate or GRADE rating was reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Silver diamine fluoride (SDF, including SDF + fluoride varnish) vs Other standard-of-care caries treatments pooled (placebo, ART, or ART + fluoride varnish)

Oral health-related quality of life · Children with dental caries

SDF had no significant effect on oral health-related quality of life versus pooled standard-of-care caries treatments (SMD -0.06, 95% CI -0.20 to 0.08; ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

38% SDF (indirect pulp capping) vs Resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC)

Restoration color, marginal staining and luster (esthetics) · Children with deep occlusal caries in young permanent first molars (indirect pulp capping)

RMGIC gave significantly better restoration esthetics than SDF, which caused black staining (p=0.03; ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Silver diamine fluoride (SDF) vs Sealants or resin infiltration

Adverse effects · Children and adults (with or without carious lesions)
1 finding from 1 review

Silver diamine fluoride (SDF) vs Restoration (restorative treatment)

Aesthetics · Children and adults (with or without carious lesions)
1 finding from 1 review