What do systematic reviews say?

Ozone applied to the carious lesion (10 or 40 seconds), with a fluoride reductant and oral hygiene/preventive advice vs No ozone, with a fluoride reductant and oral hygiene/preventive advice (as in the intervention group)

• Ozone therapy for the treatment of dental caries 2004 · Cochrane All outcomes
  Abu-Naba'a 2003 reported participants' state of anxiety, comparing ozone treatment with traditional dental interventions (injection, drilling, filling); because no participant was randomised between ozone and drilling…
  1 study
  GRADE not reported

Direct resin composite veneer vs Indirect resin composite veneer

• Direct versus indirect veneer restorations for intrinsic dental stains 2004 · Cochrane All outcomes

  2 years
  Meijering 1998 (Table 4): patients satisfied at 2 years - direct resin composite 67%, indirect resin composite 82%. No statistical comparison performed.
  1 study
  GRADE not reported

Direct resin composite veneer vs Porcelain (indirect) veneer

• Direct versus indirect veneer restorations for intrinsic dental stains 2004 · Cochrane All outcomes

  2 years
  Meijering 1998 (Table 4): patients satisfied at 2 years - direct resin composite 67%, porcelain 93%. No statistical comparison performed.
  1 study
  GRADE not reported

Metal-free implant-supported single crowns (zirconia veneered with feldspathic ceramic) vs Metal-ceramic implant-supported single crowns

It is very uncertain whether metal-free implant-supported single crowns (zirconia veneered with… changes aesthetic evaluation (patient satisfaction VAS) compared with metal-ceramic implant-supported single crowns (very low certainty).

• Metal‐free materials for fixed prosthodontic restorations 2017 · Cochrane All outcomes

  12 months
  MD -4.65 [-18.75, 9.45]
  1 study · 18 participants
  Very low
• Metal‐free materials for fixed prosthodontic restorations 2017 · Cochrane All outcomes

  24 months
  MD -0.03 [-7.65, 7.59]
  1 study · 18 participants
  Very low

Resin composite restorations containing antibacterial agents vs Non-antibacterial containing composite restorations

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• 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

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• 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

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• 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

Metal-free FDPs (zirconia ceramic) vs Metal-ceramic FDPs

It is very uncertain whether metal-free FDPs (zirconia ceramic) changes aesthetic evaluation (patient aesthetic satisfaction changes) compared with metal-ceramic FDPs (very low certainty).

• Metal‐free materials for fixed prosthodontic restorations 2017 · Cochrane All outcomes

  36 months
  OR 15.40 [0.78, 304.61]
  1 study · 34 participants
  Very low

Single full-coverage metal-ceramic crown over composite core and post vs Direct adhesive composite restoration with post (conventional filling, no crown)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Single crowns versus conventional fillings for the restoration of root‐filled teeth 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes
  This outcome was not reported nor measured by the study. The abstract confirms no evidence was available for any secondary outcome.
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

Repair of a defective amalgam restoration in a permanent molar or premolar tooth (with amalgam) vs Replacement of a defective amalgam restoration in a permanent molar or premolar tooth (with amalgam)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Replacement versus repair of defective restorations in adults: amalgam 2014 · Cochrane All outcomes

  Medium term (less than 5 years) or long term (5 years and above)
  No randomised controlled trials were found
  0 studies
  No studies found

Repair of a defective resin composite restoration in a permanent molar or premolar tooth (with resin composite) vs Replacement of a defective resin composite restoration in a permanent molar or premolar tooth (with resin composite)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Replacement versus repair of defective restorations in adults: resin composite 2014 · Cochrane All outcomes

  Medium term (less than 5 years) or long term (5 years and above)
  No randomised controlled trials were found
  0 studies
  No studies found