What do systematic reviews say?

Psychological intervention based on a specified psychological model/theory (to increase adherence to oral hygiene instructions) vs attention control

• Psychological interventions to improve adherence to oral hygiene instructions in adults with periodontal diseases 2007 · Cochrane All outcomes

  5 weeks (2 weeks post-intervention)
  Stewart 1991: for self reported brushing only the comparison of the control group with the cognitive behavioural intervention was significant; the cognitive behavioural (psychological) intervention conveyed no…
  1 study · 50 participants
  GRADE not reported

Psychological intervention based on a specified psychological model/theory (to increase adherence to oral hygiene instructions) vs usual care or no treatment

• Psychological interventions to improve adherence to oral hygiene instructions in adults with periodontal diseases 2007 · Cochrane All outcomes
  Self assessed brushing was assessed in two studies (Little 1997; Stewart 1991); both found the intervention groups reported improved brushing. Little 1997: Analysis of Covariance found significant differences favouring…
  2 studies
  GRADE not reported

Light-cured resin-modified glass ionomer cement vs Glass ionomer cement (GIC)

Over 1 year in permanent teeth, secondary caries did not differ significantly between RMGIC and GIC (RR 1.82, 95% CI 0.45-7.28; low certainty).

• Clinical efficacy of bioactive restorative materials in controlling secondary caries: a systematic review and network… 2023 All outcomes

  1 year of follow-up · Restorative dentistry clinical settings; primary studies conducted across multiple countries
  RR 1.82 [0.45, 7.28]
  2 studies · 126 participants
  Low
• Clinical efficacy of bioactive restorative materials in controlling secondary caries: a systematic review and network… 2023 All outcomes

  2 or more years of follow-up · Restorative dentistry clinical settings; primary studies conducted across multiple countries
  RR 1.33 [0.70, 2.54]
  5 studies · 141 participants
  Low

Composite resin vs Glass ionomer cement (GIC)

Over 1 year in permanent teeth, resin composite showed no statistically significant difference in secondary caries versus GIC (RR 3.05, 95% CI 0.95-9.79; low certainty).

• Clinical efficacy of bioactive restorative materials in controlling secondary caries: a systematic review and network… 2023 All outcomes

  1 year of follow-up · Restorative dentistry clinical settings; primary studies conducted across multiple countries
  RR 3.05 [0.95, 9.79]
  6 studies · 479 participants
  Low
• Clinical efficacy of bioactive restorative materials in controlling secondary caries: a systematic review and network… 2023 All outcomes

  2 or more years of follow-up · Restorative dentistry clinical settings; primary studies conducted across multiple countries
  RR 2.00 [1.10, 3.64]
  13 studies · 728 participants
  Very low

Glass ionomer cement vs Resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC)

Over 2 or more years in deciduous teeth, GIC probably had a higher risk of secondary caries than RMGIC (RR 1.92, 95% CI 1.03-3.56; moderate certainty).

• Clinical efficacy of bioactive restorative materials in controlling secondary caries: a systematic review and network… 2023 All outcomes

  2 or more years of follow-up · Restorative dentistry clinical settings; primary studies conducted across multiple countries
  RR 1.92 [1.03, 3.56]
  7 studies · 1193 participants
  Moderate

Compomer (Dyract) vs Glass ionomer cement (GIC)

Over 2 or more years in permanent teeth, the effect of compomer versus GIC on secondary caries is very uncertain (RR 3.20, 95% CI 0.59-17.33; very low certainty).

• Clinical efficacy of bioactive restorative materials in controlling secondary caries: a systematic review and network… 2023 All outcomes

  2 or more years of follow-up · Restorative dentistry clinical settings; primary studies conducted across multiple countries
  RR 3.20 [0.59, 17.33]
  2 studies · 79 participants
  Very low

Compomer (Dyract) vs Resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC)

Over 2 or more years in deciduous teeth, secondary caries did not differ significantly between compomer and RMGIC (RR 1.68, 95% CI 0.87-3.25; low certainty).

• Clinical efficacy of bioactive restorative materials in controlling secondary caries: a systematic review and network… 2023 All outcomes

  2 or more years of follow-up · Restorative dentistry clinical settings; primary studies conducted across multiple countries
  RR 1.68 [0.87, 3.25]
  5 studies · 207 participants
  Low

Fluoride-containing amalgam (FAAG) vs Glass ionomer cement (GIC)

Over 2 or more years in permanent teeth, secondary caries did not differ significantly between fluoride-containing amalgam and GIC (RR 0.95, 95% CI 0.45-2.00; low certainty).

• Clinical efficacy of bioactive restorative materials in controlling secondary caries: a systematic review and network… 2023 All outcomes

  2 or more years of follow-up · Restorative dentistry clinical settings; primary studies conducted across multiple countries
  RR 0.95 [0.45, 2.00]
  6 studies · 309 participants
  Low

Composite resin vs Resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC)

Over 2 or more years in deciduous teeth, secondary caries did not differ significantly between resin composite and RMGIC (RR 1.60, 95% CI 0.85-3.00; low certainty).

• Clinical efficacy of bioactive restorative materials in controlling secondary caries: a systematic review and network… 2023 All outcomes

  2 or more years of follow-up · Restorative dentistry clinical settings; primary studies conducted across multiple countries
  RR 1.60 [0.85, 3.00]
  8 studies · 438 participants
  Low

Compomer (Dyract) vs Resin composite restoration

In deciduous teeth at 1 year, secondary caries did not differ significantly between compomer and resin composite, with high heterogeneity (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.02-8.34; I2=83%; ungraded).

• Clinical efficacy of bioactive restorative materials in controlling secondary caries: a systematic review and network… 2023 All outcomes

  1 year of follow-up · Restorative dentistry clinical settings; primary studies conducted across multiple countries · Compomer
  RR 0.41 [0.02, 8.34]
  2 studies · 250 participants
  GRADE not reported

Summary of findings: ACBT vs CCPT

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Active cycle of breathing technique for cystic fibrosis 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

Summary of findings: ACBT vs PEP mask therapy

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Active cycle of breathing technique for cystic fibrosis 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

Summary of findings: ACBT vs PEP mask therapy

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Active cycle of breathing technique for cystic fibrosis 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

Summary of findings: ACBT vs PEP mask therapy

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Active cycle of breathing technique for cystic fibrosis 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

Summary of findings: ACBT vs PEP mask therapy

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Active cycle of breathing technique for cystic fibrosis 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

Summary of findings: ACBT vs PEP mask therapy

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Active cycle of breathing technique for cystic fibrosis 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

Summary of findings: ACBT vs OD

• Active cycle of breathing technique for cystic fibrosis 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  1 study · 30 participants
  Very low

Summary of findings: ACBT vs OD

• Active cycle of breathing technique for cystic fibrosis 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  6 participants
  GRADE not reported

Summary of findings: ACBT vs OD

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Active cycle of breathing technique for cystic fibrosis 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

Summary of findings: ACBT vs OD

• Active cycle of breathing technique for cystic fibrosis 2023 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only
  no estimate extracted
  6 participants
  GRADE not reported