Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

16 questions · 16 findings · 8 reviews · Dental caries

Sort:Best matchNewest Highest certainty Download CSV

No studies found 11 · 68.8%GRADE not reported 3 · 18.8%Very low 2 · 12.5%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%

Closest answers

The findings closest to your search, judged one by one by TypeSafe's Jev model.

Direct match · question page
- ART using high-viscosity glass ionomer cement (H-GIC), hand instruments vs Conventional treatment using H-GIC (rotary instruments) · Costs (direct and indirect)
  Atraumatic restorative treatment versus conventional restorative treatment for managing dental caries 2017 · Cochrane All outcomes
  No studies reported on costs for this comparison.
  0 studies
  No studies found
Direct match · question page
- Resin composite restorations (filling and bonding systems) containing antibacterial agents vs Composite restorations not containing antibacterial agents · Costs (direct costs of interventions)
  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
Direct match · question page
- ART using resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RM-GIC) vs Conventional treatment using RM-GIC · Costs (direct and indirect)
  Atraumatic restorative treatment versus conventional restorative treatment for managing dental caries 2017 · Cochrane All outcomes
  No studies reported on costs for this comparison.
  0 studies
  No studies found
Direct match · question page
- Rubber dam isolation and moisture control (alone or with saliva aspiration) vs Cotton rolls (with or without saliva aspiration) · Costs: direct cost of treatment
  Rubber dam isolation for restorative treatment in dental patients 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes
  no estimate extracted
  0 studies
  No studies found
Direct match · question page
- Selective carious tissue removal (selective excavation, SE) vs Stepwise carious tissue removal (SW) · Efficiency, costs or cost-effectiveness
  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

Rubber dam vs Isolite system

Costs: operation/chair time · Dental patients undergoing direct or indirect restorative treatment (no age or gender restriction)

It is very uncertain whether rubber dam isolation changes costs: operation/chair time compared with isolite system (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Rubber dam isolation for restorative treatment in dental patients 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes
Pit and fissure sealing (permanent molars)
MD 9.36 [8.42, 10.30]
1 study · 42 participants
Very low

High-viscosity glass-ionomer ART restorations vs Conventional treatment using H-GIC (rotary instruments)

Costs (direct and indirect) · People with dental caries in primary teeth (mainly children)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Atraumatic restorative treatment versus conventional restorative treatment for managing dental caries 2017 · Cochrane All outcomes
No studies reported on costs for this comparison.
0 studies
No studies found

ART using resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RM-GIC) vs Conventional treatment using RM-GIC

Costs (direct and indirect) · Older adults with root caries in permanent (mature) teeth (mean age 75 years)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Atraumatic restorative treatment versus conventional restorative treatment for managing dental caries 2017 · Cochrane All outcomes
No studies reported on costs for this comparison.
0 studies
No studies found

ART using composite resin vs Conventional treatment using composite resin

Costs (direct and indirect) · Children with carious primary teeth

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Atraumatic restorative treatment versus conventional restorative treatment for managing dental caries 2017 · Cochrane All outcomes
No studies reported on costs for this comparison.
0 studies
No studies found

Rubber dam isolation and moisture control (alone or with saliva aspiration) vs Cotton rolls (with or without saliva aspiration)

Costs: direct cost of treatment · Dental patients undergoing direct or indirect restorative treatment (no age or gender restriction)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Rubber dam isolation for restorative treatment in dental patients 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes
no estimate extracted
0 studies
No studies found

Rubber dam isolation and moisture control (alone or with saliva aspiration) vs Cotton rolls (with or without saliva aspiration)

Costs: treatment/operation time · Dental patients undergoing direct or indirect restorative treatment (no age or gender restriction)

It is very uncertain whether rubber dam isolation and moisture control (alone or with saliva… changes costs: treatment/operation time compared with cotton rolls (with or without saliva aspiration) (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Rubber dam isolation for restorative treatment in dental patients 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes
NCCL composite (Loguercio); fissure sealing (Ammann, narrative)
MD -0.40 [-2.26, 1.46]
1 study · 30 participants
Very low

Rubber dam vs Isolite system

Costs: direct cost of treatment · Dental patients undergoing direct or indirect restorative treatment (no age or gender restriction)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Rubber dam isolation for restorative treatment in dental patients 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes
no estimate extracted
0 studies
No studies found

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

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

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

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

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

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