Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

574 questions · 721 findings · 67 reviews · Oral Health

No studies found 93 · 12.9%GRADE not reported 450 · 62.4%Very low 82 · 11.4%Low 73 · 10.1%Moderate 21 · 2.9%High 2 · 0.3%

All fluorescence-based devices (red, blue, and green fluorescence combined) vs Reference standard (histology, excavation, or enhanced visual examination)

Diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) for detection of early enamel caries (D1 threshold) · Asymptomatic children, adolescents, or adults presenting for clinical examination (in vivo studies), or extracted teeth of children or…
1 finding from 1 review

All fluorescence-based devices (red, blue, and green fluorescence combined) vs Reference standard (histology, excavation, or enhanced visual examination)

Diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) by subgroup: Single site per tooth (detection of early enamel caries, D1 threshold) · Asymptomatic children, adolescents, or adults presenting for clinical examination (in vivo studies), or extracted teeth of children or…
1 finding from 1 review

All fluorescence-based devices (red, blue, and green fluorescence combined) vs Reference standard (histology, excavation, or enhanced visual examination)

Diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) by subgroup: Radiography reference standard (detection of early enamel caries, D1 threshold) · Asymptomatic children, adolescents, or adults presenting for clinical examination (in vivo studies), or extracted teeth of children or…
1 finding from 1 review

All fluorescence-based devices (red, blue, and green fluorescence combined) vs Reference standard (histology, excavation, or enhanced visual examination)

Diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) by subgroup: Enhanced visual examination reference standard (detection of early enamel caries, D1 threshold) · Asymptomatic children, adolescents, or adults presenting for clinical examination (in vivo studies), or extracted teeth of children or…
1 finding from 1 review

Blue fluorescence devices (VistaProof, SoproLife, Spectra; wavelength 400-450 nm) vs Reference standard (histology, excavation, or enhanced visual examination)

Diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity and specificity) for detection of early enamel caries (D1 threshold) · Asymptomatic children, adolescents, or adults presenting for clinical examination (in vivo studies), or extracted teeth of children or…
1 finding from 1 review
  • Fluorescence devices for the detection of dental caries 2020 · Cochrane All outcomes
    Up to 3 months between index test and reference standard (in vivo studies)
    Analysed as a separate index test (coupled forest plot and SROC plot, Figure 24 / Figure 25; Appendix 5); no summary DOR or sensitivity/specificity point reported numerically in the text. 3 datasets, 1027 tooth sites.
    3 studies
    GRADE not reported

Quantitative light-induced fluorescence (QLF) vs Reference standard (histology, excavation, or enhanced visual examination)

Diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) for detection of early enamel caries (D1 threshold) · Asymptomatic children, adolescents, or adults presenting for clinical examination (in vivo studies), or extracted teeth of children or…
1 finding from 1 review

All fluorescence-based devices (red, blue, and green fluorescence combined) vs Reference standard (histology, excavation, or enhanced visual examination)

Sensitivity at fixed median specificity 0.78 (detection of early enamel caries, D1 threshold) · Asymptomatic children, adolescents, or adults presenting for clinical examination (in vivo studies), or extracted teeth of children or…
1 finding from 1 review

Blue fluorescence devices (VistaProof, SoproLife, Spectra; wavelength 400-450 nm) vs Reference standard (histology, excavation, or enhanced visual examination)

Diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) for detection of early enamel caries (D1 threshold) · Asymptomatic children, adolescents, or adults presenting for clinical examination (in vivo studies), or extracted teeth of children or…
1 finding from 1 review

All fluorescence-based devices (red, blue, and green fluorescence combined) vs Reference standard (histology, excavation, or enhanced visual examination)

Diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) by subgroup: High dentine-caries prevalence (>=35%) (detection of early enamel caries, D1 threshold) · Asymptomatic children, adolescents, or adults presenting for clinical examination (in vivo studies), or extracted teeth of children or…
1 finding from 1 review

All fluorescence-based devices (red, blue, and green fluorescence combined) vs Reference standard (histology, excavation, or enhanced visual examination)

Diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) by subgroup: Primary dentition (detection of early enamel caries, D1 threshold) · Asymptomatic children, adolescents, or adults presenting for clinical examination (in vivo studies), or extracted teeth of children or…
1 finding from 1 review

MidWest (DENTSPLY; red fluorescence, red/green light and sound signal) vs Reference standard (histology, excavation, or enhanced visual examination)

Diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity and specificity) for detection of early enamel caries (D1 threshold) · Asymptomatic children, adolescents, or adults presenting for clinical examination (in vivo studies), or extracted teeth of children or…
1 finding from 1 review
  • Fluorescence devices for the detection of dental caries 2020 · Cochrane All outcomes
    Up to 3 months between index test and reference standard (in vivo studies)
    Analysed as a separate index test (coupled forest plot and SROC plot, Figure 22 / Figure 23; Appendix 5); no summary DOR or sensitivity/specificity point reported numerically in the text. 4 datasets, 356 tooth sites.
    4 studies
    GRADE not reported

All fluorescence-based devices (red, blue, and green fluorescence combined) vs Reference standard (histology, excavation, or enhanced visual examination)

Diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) by subgroup: Multiple sites per tooth (detection of early enamel caries, D1 threshold) · Asymptomatic children, adolescents, or adults presenting for clinical examination (in vivo studies), or extracted teeth of children or…
1 finding from 1 review

All fluorescence-based devices (red, blue, and green fluorescence combined) vs Reference standard (histology, excavation, or enhanced visual examination)

Diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) by subgroup: Smooth or secondary-caries surfaces (detection of early enamel caries, D1 threshold) · Asymptomatic children, adolescents, or adults presenting for clinical examination (in vivo studies), or extracted teeth of children or…
1 finding from 1 review

All fluorescence-based devices (red, blue, and green fluorescence combined) vs Reference standard (histology, excavation, or enhanced visual examination)

Diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) by subgroup: Proximal surfaces (detection of early enamel caries, D1 threshold) · Asymptomatic children, adolescents, or adults presenting for clinical examination (in vivo studies), or extracted teeth of children or…
1 finding from 1 review

All fluorescence-based devices (red, blue, and green fluorescence combined) vs Reference standard (histology, excavation, or enhanced visual examination)

Diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) by subgroup: Occlusal surfaces (detection of early enamel caries, D1 threshold) · Asymptomatic children, adolescents, or adults presenting for clinical examination (in vivo studies), or extracted teeth of children or…
1 finding from 1 review

Higher JIA disease activity/severity (e.g., high JADAS/activity scores, polyarticular RF-negative subtype, active disease, anti-TNFalpha or cyclosporine medication) vs Lower JIA disease activity / inactive or milder JIA

Prevalence and severity of oral and TMJ diseases/conditions (periodontal status and dental caries) · Children and adolescents with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA)

Some studies suggested greater JIA disease activity/severity (and certain medications) was associated with worse periodontal and caries outcomes, but small samples meant no solid conclusion could be drawn (ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

ART using composite resin vs Conventional treatment using composite resin

Participant experience (dental anxiety) · Children with carious primary teeth

ART using composite resin showed no clear difference in participant experience (dental anxiety) compared with conventional treatment using composite resin; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Down syndrome vs Individuals without Down syndrome (healthy controls: siblings, schoolchildren or others)

Mean DMFT (decayed, missing, filled permanent teeth) · Individuals of all ages

Individuals with Down syndrome had a lower mean DMFT in permanent teeth than controls (pooled SMD -0.18, 95% CI -0.35 to -0.02; 6 studies; I2=20%); certainty of evidence not graded.

1 finding from 1 review