Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

10 questions · 10 findings · 8 reviews · Oral Health

No studies found 5 · 50%GRADE not reported 4 · 40%Very low 1 · 10%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

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

Visual screening (oral visual inspection) by trained health workers vs No screening

Costs · Apparently healthy adults aged 35 years or older (general population), living in 13 clusters in rural areas of Trivandrum city, Kerala,…
1 finding from 1 review
  • Screening programmes for the early detection and prevention of oral cancer 2013 · Cochrane All outcomes
    9 years (three cycles)
    The costs associated with the screening programme were reported after three cycles (nine years) (Subramanian 2009) (Additional Table 8). The benefit produced by a screen was 269.31 life-years saved per 100,000 for all…
    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

Fee‐for‐service (FFS) vs no intervention or control intervention (control)

Healthcare costs: cost-effectiveness of fee-for-service vs control (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio, reported as % change in outcome per GBP; currency year NR) · Dentists seeing children with erupted second permanent molars (Scotland, in areas representing the four most deprived categories out of…
1 finding from 1 review

Any method, procedure or policy to reduce contaminated aerosols in dental clinics vs Any other method, no treatment or combination of methods

Cost of the intervention · Dental healthcare providers (dentist, dental surgery assistant, dental hygienist, dental technologist, dental laboratory staff, dental…

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

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

Amifostine vs no treatment/placebo

Cost (mean per-patient supportive care costs) · Patients receiving radiotherapy on its own or in addition to chemotherapy to the head and neck region
1 finding from 1 review

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 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