Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

211 questions · 428 findings · 24 reviews

No studies found 1 · 0.2%GRADE not reported 346 · 80.8%Very low 14 · 3.3%Low 24 · 5.6%Moderate 43 · 10%High 0 · 0%

Prior SDF application with a rinsing step vs No prior SDF application (untreated dentin control)

Immediate bond strength (MPa) · Glass-ionomer cement bonded to caries-affected dentin (in vitro)

SDF pretreatment with a rinsing step does not affect glass-ionomer cement bond strength to caries-affected dentin (MD -0.36 MPa, 95% CI -1.07 to 0.35; ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Prior application of silver diamine fluoride (SDF), with or without a rinsing step vs No prior SDF application (untreated dentin control)

Immediate bond strength (MPa) · Glass-ionomer cement bonded to dentin (in vitro), sound or caries-affected

Prior SDF application does not influence the immediate bond strength of glass-ionomer cement to dentin (MD -0.11 MPa, 95% CI -0.54 to 0.31; ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

38% silver diamine fluoride vs No treatment / other preventive agents (GIC, 5% NaF varnish)

Caries arrest · Children with dentine carious lesions (ICDAS 4-5) in primary teeth

A second meta-analysis reported odds ratios of 2.44 to 3.63 favouring 38% SDF over fluoride varnish/water for caries arrest (ungraded).

2 findings from 1 review

Prior SDF application with a rinsing step vs No prior SDF application (untreated dentin control)

Immediate bond strength (MPa) · Dental adhesives bonded to caries-affected dentin (in vitro)

Prior SDF followed by a rinsing step significantly increases adhesive bond strength to caries-affected dentin (MD -4.79 MPa favoring SDF, 95% CI -9.19 to -0.40; ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

38% SDF solution (applied biannually) vs 38% SDF solution (applied annually)

Caries arrest · Children with dentine carious lesions (ICDAS 4-5) in primary teeth

Twice-yearly 38% SDF was reported to arrest more caries than once-yearly application (24-month rates 91% vs 79%; ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Prior SDF application without a rinsing step vs No prior SDF application (untreated dentin control)

Immediate bond strength (MPa) · Dental adhesives bonded to caries-affected dentin (in vitro)

Only one study assessed SDF without a rinsing step on adhesive bonding to caries-affected dentin (Kucukyilmaz 2016, which reported impaired bond strength); no meta-analysis was possible, so no pooled estimate is available.

1 finding from 1 review

color contrast: black vs dark brown/light brown/yellow vs hardness contrast: soft vs medium/hard

total microbial load (log10 CFU) · humans with open primary dentine caries

In one study, hardness category differences exceeded color category differences; no meta-analysis was conducted.

1 finding from 1 review

Conventional restorative treatment with compomer vs Other network treatments

Treatment success rate · Primary teeth with dentin caries lesions on occlusal surfaces

CRT with compomer ranked first for treatment success in the occlusal-surface network (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Hall technique vs Other network treatments

Treatment success rate · Primary teeth with dentin caries lesions on occlusoproximal surfaces

The Hall technique ranked first for treatment success in the occlusoproximal-surface network (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Hall technique vs Compomer restoration or non-restorative caries treatment

Treatment failure (annual failure rate) · Children (aged 3-8 years) with 2-surface occluso-proximal dentine caries in primary molars, no pulp therapy

Preformed metal (Hall) crowns had a low reported annual failure rate (3.1%) versus compomer (14.7%) in one RCT; low quality of evidence (ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Nano-hydroxyapatite (nHA) dentifrice/paste (fluoride-free or fluoridated) vs nHA-free / fluoride-free (negative) control

Mineral loss (transversal microradiography) · Enamel/dentin specimens with initial caries lesions (or sound surfaces) in intraoral (in situ) appliances worn by patients

Under remineralizing conditions, nHA produced significantly more remineralization than the negative control (MD 350, 95% CI 179 to 521; very low certainty).

2 findings from 1 review

Atraumatic restorative treatment with GIC vs Conventional restoration

Restoration failure · Children (3-13 years) with dentine caries in primary teeth, no pulpal involvement

ART with GIC was reported to increase the odds of restoration failure versus conventional restoration (OR 1.60; ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Fluoride-free nano-hydroxyapatite (nHA) dentifrice/paste vs Sodium fluoride (control) toothpaste

Mineral loss (transversal microradiography) · Enamel/dentin specimens with initial caries lesions (or sound surfaces) in intraoral (in situ) appliances worn by patients

Under demineralizing conditions, nHA allowed significantly more enamel demineralization than NaF (MD 1625, 95% CI 553 to 2697; very low certainty).

2 findings from 1 review

Atraumatic restorative treatment with GIC vs Conventional treatment

Pain during the procedure (primary analysis) · Children (3-13 years) with dentine caries in primary teeth, no pulpal involvement

The reported estimate for procedural pain with ART versus conventional treatment was inconclusive (ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

30% silver diamine fluoride vs Atraumatic restorative treatment (ART)

Patient discomfort during treatment (anxiety scale) · Children (age 1-10 years) with active cavitated dentin caries lesions in primary molars

One study found no significant difference in patient discomfort between SDF and ART (p = 0.15; ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Composite resin with etch-and-rinse (total-etch) adhesion vs Composite resin with self-etch adhesion (same universal adhesive)

Treatment failure (annual failure rate) · Children with moderately deep dentine caries in primary molars, no pulp therapy

Etch-and-rinse adhesion failed more than self-etch (19.5% vs 7.0% annual failure) in one RCT; low quality of evidence (ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review