Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

417 questions · 819 findings · 72 reviews

No studies found 9 · 1.1%GRADE not reported 759 · 92.7%Very low 39 · 4.8%Low 5 · 0.6%Moderate 6 · 0.7%High 1 · 0.1%

Not applicable (single-group prevalence) vs Not applicable (single-group prevalence)

Dental caries prevalence · Children (<18 years) with intellectual and developmental disabilities (IDD) in India

Dental caries affects about 64% of children with IDD in India (pooled prevalence 0.64, 95% CI 0.45-0.79; high heterogeneity; ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Responsive complementary feeding (RCF) / other caregivers' feeding practices vs Other models of complementary feeding (traditional/non-responsive CF)

Dental caries · Healthy, term-born, normal-birth-weight infants aged 4-24 months (breastfed and/or formula-fed) in Western industrialized countries

No eligible studies examined the influence of complementary feeding practices on later dental caries; this is an evidence gap.

1 finding from 1 review

Intraglandular botulinum neurotoxin (BoNT) injection vs No BoNT (placebo or pre-treatment baseline)

Development of >=1 new carious lesion (caries incidence) · Patients with drooling (sialorrhea) due to neurological disease

In one RCT, BoNT-B 2500 U was not associated with a statistically significant increase in new caries versus placebo (RR 2.4, 95% CI 0.48 to 11.80; not significant).

2 findings from 1 review

High maternal allostatic load (chronic stress) and low socioeconomic status vs Lower maternal allostatic load

Dental caries in children · Mother-child pairs

In one cross-sectional study, higher maternal allostatic load was associated with child dental caries experience and with health-related maternal care-taking behaviours; not pooled (ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Slum / urban-disadvantaged setting vs Non-slum urban / general-urban / national population

Caries experience (mean DMFT) · Adult residents of slums and non-slum urban settings of LMICs

Mean DMFT ranges from 0.26 to 16.6 across LMIC urban/slum populations; ungraded.

1 finding from 1 review

Disability (developmental, intellectual, or sensory) vs Persons without disabilities

Dental caries prevalence and severity · Persons with disabilities (children and adults with autism, Down syndrome, cerebral palsy, hearing impairment, or multiple disabilities)…

Dental caries prevalence and severity are high among persons with disabilities in Saudi Arabia (60% to over 80%), and the one comparative autism study reported significantly higher caries than controls; synthesized narratively (ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Combined antiretroviral therapy (cART) vs Monotherapy or dual antiretroviral therapy

Dental caries prevalence and severity · Children and adolescents (<18 years) living with HIV (CLWH)

No significant difference in dental caries/severity between ART regimens (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Primary school-based interventions (one or more of: school health policy, oral health education, healthy school environment, access to oral health services, community involvement) vs usual practice

Dental caries · Primary school children (aged 3-16 years) attending primary school in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs)

Among children aged 6-8 years, DMFT scores were significantly reduced (SMD -0.11); subgroup not separately GRADE-rated.

8 findings from 1 review
Show 5 more findings

Oral hygiene interventions (mechanical plaque removal): knowledge-based, behavioural, or skills training for people with ID or their carers vs Usual care, no care, or a similar alternative intervention

Dental caries levels of people with ID · People with intellectual disabilities (ID), living at home, in day care, in hospital or in a residential care setting; all levels of ID as…

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Probiotics vs placebo or control

Dental caries in children · Adolescents (12-18 years) without background systemic disease

In a subgroup analysis, probiotics reduced the number of caries in adolescents (MD -0.60, 95%CI -0.92 to -0.28; p-interaction=0.02); not GRADE-rated.

1 finding from 1 review

Probiotics vs placebo or control

Dental caries in children · Children and/or adolescents (<18 years) without background systemic disease

Probiotics probably make little to no difference to the number of dental caries versus control (MD -0.24 carious pieces, 95%CI -0.72 to 0.23; low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Referral letter based on the common-sense model (CSM) plus dental information guide (DIG) vs Referral letter based on the common-sense model (CSM) alone

Proportion of children with treated/untreated caries (receipt of dental care) · School children, primary schools in the USA

It is very uncertain whether referral letter based on the common-sense model (CSM) plus dental… changes proportion of children with treated/untreated caries (receipt of… compared with referral letter based on the common-sense model (CSM) alone (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review