Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

6 questions · 6 findings · 4 reviews · Dental caries

Sort:Best matchNewest Highest certainty Download CSV

No studies found 3 · 50%GRADE not reported 3 · 50%Very low 0 · 0%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%

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

Costs (direct costs of interventions) · Adults and adolescents in any age group with restorations in the permanent dentition and children with restorations in the primary dentition

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

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)

Cost of the intervention · People with a permanent tooth that has undergone endodontic (root canal) treatment

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

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

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

Efficiency, costs or cost-effectiveness · Children and/or adults with permanent or primary teeth, vital (sensitive) pulps, and cavitated or dentine carious lesions conventionally…

1 finding from 1 review

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)

Efficiency, costs or cost-effectiveness · Children and/or adults with permanent or primary teeth, vital (sensitive) pulps, and cavitated or dentine carious lesions conventionally…

1 finding from 1 review

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)

Efficiency, costs or cost-effectiveness · Children and/or adults with permanent or primary teeth, vital (sensitive) pulps, and cavitated or dentine carious lesions conventionally…

1 finding from 1 review

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

Costs (direct and indirect) · Dentate children and adults with non-cavitated proximal caries lesions extending into enamel or dentine (not pulp) in primary or permanent…

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

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