Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

6 questions · 6 findings · 3 reviews · Oral Health

Sort:Best matchNewest Highest certainty Download CSV

No studies found 2 · 33.3%GRADE not reported 3 · 50%Very low 1 · 16.7%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
- 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
Direct match · question page
- Non-selective carious tissue removal and conventional restoration (CR) vs Hall Technique (sealing with a preformed metal crown) · Efficiency, costs or cost-effectiveness
  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
Direct match · question page
- Extraction of the primary (baby) canine (single primary tooth extraction) vs No extraction (non-intervention control) · Costs / cost-effectiveness
  Interventions for promoting the eruption of palatally displaced permanent canine teeth, without the need for surgical… 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes
  The study did not report cost-effectiveness.
  0 studies
  No studies found
Direct match · question page
- Double primary (canine and first molar) tooth extraction vs Single primary (canine) tooth extraction · Costs / cost-effectiveness
  Interventions for promoting the eruption of palatally displaced permanent canine teeth, without the need for surgical… 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes
  The studies did not report cost-effectiveness.
  0 studies
  No studies found
Direct match · question page
- Fee-for-service remuneration vs No specific 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)
  The effect of different methods of remuneration on the behaviour of primary care dentists 2013 · Cochrane All outcomes
  18 months
  ICER 0.10
  1 study · 68 participants
  Very low

Double primary (canine and first molar) tooth extraction vs Single primary (canine) tooth extraction

Costs and cost‐effectiveness · Young people aged 9 to 14 years diagnosed with one or both palatally displaced permanent maxillary canines (PDC)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions for promoting the eruption of palatally displaced permanent canine teeth, without the need for surgical… 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes
The studies did not report cost-effectiveness.
0 studies
No studies found

Extraction of the primary (baby) canine (single primary tooth extraction) vs No extraction (non-intervention control)

Costs and cost‐effectiveness · Young people aged 9 to 14 years diagnosed with one or both palatally displaced permanent maxillary canines (PDC)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions for promoting the eruption of palatally displaced permanent canine teeth, without the need for surgical… 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes
The study did not report cost-effectiveness.
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

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

The effect of different methods of remuneration on the behaviour of primary care dentists 2013 · Cochrane All outcomes
18 months
ICER 0.10
1 study · 68 participants
Very low