Search

What do systematic reviews say?

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

37 questions · 38 findings · 15 reviews · Dental caries

No studies found 16 · 42.1%GRADE not reported 9 · 23.7%Very low 10 · 26.3%Low 2 · 5.3%Moderate 1 · 2.6%High 0 · 0%

Glass ionomer-based sealant vs Resin-based sealant

Adverse events · 'Healthy' children with caries-free second primary molars, aged 3-5 years (schools and kindergartens, India and China)
1 finding from 1 review
  • 1 study reported adverse events as some discomfort such as nausea; 1 child experienced a strong gag reflex following the glass ionomer-based sealant while 8 children reported feeling uncomfortable after the fluoride…
    1 study · 100 participants
    Very low

Dental cavity liner (e.g. calcium hydroxide, glass ionomer, resin-modified glass ionomer, or flowable composite) placed under the restoration vs No liner (resin-based composite bonded directly to the tooth)

Adverse events · Adults or children with a Class I or Class II resin-based composite restoration in a permanent posterior tooth

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Micro-invasive treatment (proximal sealing or resin infiltration): resin sealant, glass ionomer sealant, polyurethane/adhesive patch, or resin infiltration vs Non-invasive / control treatment

Adverse events · Dentate children and adults with non-cavitated proximal caries lesions extending into enamel or dentine (not pulp) in primary or permanent…
1 finding from 1 review

Repair of a defective resin composite restoration in a permanent molar or premolar tooth (with resin composite) vs Replacement of a defective resin composite restoration in a permanent molar or premolar tooth (with resin composite)

Adverse events · Adults (16 years or over) with one or more defective resin composite restoration(s) in a molar or premolar tooth/teeth

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Repair of a defective amalgam restoration in a permanent molar or premolar tooth (with amalgam) vs Replacement of a defective amalgam restoration in a permanent molar or premolar tooth (with amalgam)

Adverse events · Adults (16 years or over) with one or more defective amalgam restoration(s) in a molar or premolar tooth/teeth

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Ozone applied to the carious lesion (10 or 40 seconds), with a fluoride reductant and oral hygiene/preventive advice vs No ozone, with a fluoride reductant and oral hygiene/preventive advice (as in the intervention group)

Adverse events · People of any age with caries (including demineralisation in non-cavitated carious lesions); the caries may affect any single tooth…
1 finding from 1 review
  • Ozone therapy for the treatment of dental caries 2004 · Cochrane All outcomes
    To 6 months
    Baysan 2003 stated that no adverse events were reported to 6 months; no information was provided by Abu-Naba'a 2003 or Abu-Naba'a 2003pilot.
    1 study
    GRADE not reported

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

Adverse events (any type) and safety of sealant · 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

Preformed metal crown (stainless steel), conventional technique vs Aesthetic crown (stainless steel with composite/white veneer), conventional technique

Adverse events: bone resorption · Children with decayed primary molar teeth
1 finding from 1 review
  • Preformed crowns for decayed primary molar teeth 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes
    Six months and four years
    Bone resorption: one case at six months in a tooth treated with a veneer crown; no bone resorption at either the veneer crown or stainless steel sites at four-year follow-up (Analysis 3.2).
    1 study · 11 participants
    Very low