What do systematic reviews say?

Resin composite restorations containing antibacterial agents vs Non-antibacterial containing composite restorations

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Antibacterial agents in composite restorations for the prevention of dental caries 2013 · Cochrane All outcomes
  No studies were included in this review, as we were unable to find any trials directly comparing antibacterial containing composites to other active interventions or controls.
  0 studies
  No studies found

Single full-coverage metal-ceramic crown over composite core and post vs Direct adhesive composite restoration with post (conventional filling, no crown)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Single crowns versus conventional fillings for the restoration of root‐filled teeth 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes
  No data were reported nor measured by the study. The abstract confirms no evidence was available for any secondary outcome.
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

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)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Ozone therapy for the treatment of dental caries 2004 · Cochrane All outcomes
  No data were provided in any of the included trials on costs.
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

Selective carious tissue removal (selective excavation, SE) vs Stepwise carious tissue removal (SW)

• Interventions for treating cavitated or dentine carious lesions 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes

  Permanent and primary dentition
  Cost-effectiveness reported narratively: SE found more cost-effective than SW in permanent (Labib 2019) and primary teeth (Elhennawy 2021); not GRADE-rated.
  2 studies
  GRADE not reported

Non-selective carious tissue removal and conventional restoration (CR) vs Hall Technique (sealing with a preformed metal crown)

• Interventions for treating cavitated or dentine carious lesions 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes

  Primary dentition
  Cost-effectiveness reported narratively: HT found more cost-effective than CR in primary teeth (Innes 2011; Santamaria 2018); not GRADE-rated.
  2 studies
  GRADE not reported

Hall technique vs Non-restorative cavity control (NRCC)

• Interventions for treating cavitated or dentine carious lesions 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes

  Primary dentition
  Cost-effectiveness reported narratively: HT found more cost-effective than NRCC in primary teeth (Santamaria 2018); not GRADE-rated.
  1 study
  GRADE not reported

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

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Micro‐invasive interventions for managing proximal dental decay in primary and permanent teeth 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes
  None of the studies reported on costs for micro-invasive treatment or non-invasive control
  0 studies
  No studies found