Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

3,556 questions · 10,375 findings · 429 reviews · Oral Health

No studies found 1,344 · 13%GRADE not reported 6,832 · 65.9%Very low 1,228 · 11.8%Low 613 · 5.9%Moderate 290 · 2.8%High 68 · 0.7%

Ranked among the 5,000 newest matching findings; add words or filters to narrow the search.

Criteria-based screening with specific (personalised) referral letter vs Criteria-based screening with non-specific referral letter

Dental attendance at orthodontist · School children, secondary school in the UK (aged 11 to 13 years)

It is very uncertain whether criteria-based screening with specific (personalised) referral letter changes dental attendance at orthodontist compared with criteria-based screening with non-specific referral letter (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Food and nonalcoholic beverage marketing (exposure) vs No, less, or less powerful food marketing

Purchase requests · Children and adolescents (general population, aged under 20 years)

Nonrandomized evidence on purchase requests is very uncertain (very low certainty).

2 findings from 1 review

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

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

SDF pretreatment without a rinsing step does not affect glass-ionomer cement bond strength to sound dentin (MD 0.26 MPa, 95% CI -0.20 to 0.73; ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Atraumatic restorative treatment with high-viscosity GIC (class I) vs Amalgam restoration

Success or failure of restoration (as defined by the USPHS criteria) · Children with carious primary teeth

ART with high-viscosity GIC and amalgam had similar class I restoration success at 24 months (ungraded).

2 findings from 1 review

Amalgam vs Light-cured compomer (polyacid-modified composite resin)

Restoration failure · Children with carious primary teeth

No comparative effect estimate was reported; the review described similar clinical performance.

1 finding from 1 review

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

Dental development and maturation · Children and adolescents (<18 years) living with HIV (CLWH)

No eligible studies compared dental development and maturation between different ART regimens.

1 finding from 1 review

Recombinant bovine fibroblast growth factor gel vs control

Presence of dry socket · Adults (>18 years) having permanent tooth extraction (predominantly mandibular third molars)

Recombinant bovine fibroblast growth factor gel led to lower presence of dry socket compared with control; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

CBT vs inactive control (usual care care, attention control, waitlist)

Reduction in pain intensity · People aged 12 years and over with painful TMD lasting 3 months or longer

Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) may leads to lower pain intensity at follow-up (12 months) compared with usual care, waiting list or no treatment (control) (low certainty).

2 findings from 1 review

Compomer (Dyract) vs HVGIC Equia Forte and Chemfil Rock

Restoration failure · Children with carious primary teeth

No comparative effect estimate was reported; compomer had more favorable retention in the review narrative.

1 finding from 1 review

Food and nonalcoholic beverage marketing (exposure) vs No, less, or less powerful food marketing

Food choice · Children and adolescents (general population, aged under 20 years)

Food marketing probably increases children's choice of the marketed food (OR, 1.97; moderate certainty, RCTs).

3 findings from 1 review

Electrical conductance or impedance vs Reference standard (histology, excavation, or enhanced visual examination)

Sensitivity for detection of enamel caries · Asymptomatic children or adults suspected of enamel caries (clinical studies); extracted teeth (in vitro studies)

Electrical conductance or impedance had a summary sensitivity of 0.83 (95% CrI 0.66, 0.92) for detecting enamel caries; low certainty.

1 finding from 1 review