Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

6 questions · 6 findings · 4 reviews · Dental caries

Sort:Best matchNewest Highest certainty Download CSV

No studies found 4 · 66.7%GRADE not reported 2 · 33.3%Very low 0 · 0%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%

Adhesively bonded amalgam restorations in conventional preparations utilising deliberate retention (all bonding agents) vs Amalgam restoration

Economic data: direct costs of materials and any reported associated indirect costs · Adults and adolescents with permanent posterior molar and premolar teeth suitable for Class I and II, but excluding Class V, amalgam…

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Adhesively bonded versus non‐bonded amalgam restorations for dental caries 2016 · Cochrane All outcomes
Economic data: direct costs of materials and any reported associated indirect costs - not measured | See comment | See comment | Not estimable | - | See comment | No study addressed this outcome
0 studies
No studies found

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

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

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

Chlorhexidine gel (0.12%) vs no treatment

Pain, quality of life, patient satisfaction or costs · Children and adolescents below 18 years at study start (included studies: children from birth to 15 years), with mixed, permanent or…

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Chlorhexidine treatment for the prevention of dental caries in children and adolescents 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes
Neither of these trials reported on the other secondary outcomes such as measures of pain, quality of life, patient satisfaction or direct and indirect costs of interventions.
0 studies
No studies found

Chlorhexidine varnish vs placebo or no treatment

Pain, quality of life, patient satisfaction or costs · Children and adolescents below 18 years at study start (included studies: children from birth to 15 years), with mixed, permanent or…

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Chlorhexidine treatment for the prevention of dental caries in children and adolescents 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes
No trials reported on pain, quality of life, patient satisfaction or costs.
0 studies
No studies found