Search

What do systematic reviews say?

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

1,171 questions · 1,373 findings · 60 reviews · Dental caries

No studies found 282 · 20.5%GRADE not reported 606 · 44.1%Very low 257 · 18.7%Low 160 · 11.7%Moderate 66 · 4.8%High 2 · 0.1%

Non-selective carious tissue removal and conventional restoration (CR) vs Selective carious tissue removal (selective excavation, SE)

Failure of therapy · Children and/or adults with permanent or primary teeth, vital (sensitive) pulps, and cavitated or dentine carious lesions conventionally…

It is very uncertain whether non-selective carious tissue removal and conventional restoration (CR) changes failure of therapy compared with selective carious tissue removal (selective excavation, SE) (very low certainty).

3 findings from 1 review

Visual caries detection (ICDAS visual/visual-tactile inspection) vs Reference standard (histology, excavation, radiographs/microCT, or tooth separation)

Specificity for detection of enamel caries · Asymptomatic children, adolescents, or adults presenting for clinical examination (in vivo studies), or extracted teeth of children or…
1 finding from 1 review

Direct composite resin restoration vs Amalgam restoration

Harms (toxicity and postoperative sensitivity) · People with permanent or adult posterior teeth requiring restoration (parallel-group trials involved children aged 6 to 12 years)
1 finding from 1 review

Cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) vs Reference standard (histology, excavation, or enhanced visual examination)

Specificity for detection and diagnosis of early (enamel) caries · Asymptomatic children, adolescents, or adults presenting for clinical examination (in vivo studies), or extracted teeth of children or…
3 findings from 1 review

Near-infrared (NIR) transillumination vs Reference standard (histology, excavation, radiographs/microCT, or tooth separation)

Sensitivity for detection and diagnosis of early (enamel) caries · Asymptomatic children, adolescents, or adults presenting for clinical examination (in vivo studies), or extracted teeth of children or…
1 finding from 1 review

COE with blood/salivary (biomarker) analysis vs Reference standard: examination and clinical evaluation by a physician/clinician with specialist knowledge or training (long-term follow-up accepted for those screened negative)

Outcome not reported · Apparently healthy adults not reporting symptoms of OPMD or OSCC, attending an organised screening or surveillance programme, or screened…

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Remote screening of the oral cavity (mobile application/telemedicine) vs Reference standard: examination and clinical evaluation by a physician/clinician with specialist knowledge or training (long-term follow-up accepted for those screened negative)

Specificity for detection of oral cavity cancer/OPMD · Apparently healthy adults not reporting symptoms of OPMD or OSCC, attending an organised screening or surveillance programme, or screened…
1 finding from 1 review

Electrical conductance devices (electronic caries monitor (ECM) and/or CarieScan Pro), used as an adjunct to clinical oral examination vs Reference standard (histology, excavation, or enhanced visual examination)

Sensitivity · Children, adolescents, or adults presenting asymptomatically or suspected of early enamel caries (in vivo), or extracted teeth of…
2 findings from 1 review
  • Electrical conductance for the detection of dental caries 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes
    Up to 3 months between index test and reference standard (in vivo studies) · Permanent dentition
    Permanent dentition (4 studies): sensitivity ranged from 0.55 to 0.65.
    4 studies
    GRADE not reported
  • Electrical conductance for the detection of dental caries 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes
    Up to 3 months between index test and reference standard (in vivo studies) · Primary dentition
    Primary dentition (3 studies): sensitivity ranged from 0.91 to 0.93. No evidence of a difference in accuracy by dentition (removing accuracy covariate: Chi2=3.15, df=1, P=0.08).
    3 studies
    GRADE not reported

Remote screening of the oral cavity (mobile application/telemedicine) vs Reference standard: examination and clinical evaluation by a physician/clinician with specialist knowledge or training (long-term follow-up accepted for those screened negative)

Sensitivity for detection of oral cavity cancer/OPMD · Apparently healthy adults not reporting symptoms of OPMD or OSCC, attending an organised screening or surveillance programme, or screened…
1 finding from 1 review

Radiographic imaging methods (any: analogue radiographs, digital radiographs, or CBCT) vs Reference standard (histology, excavation, or enhanced visual examination)

Specificity for detection and diagnosis of early (enamel) caries · Asymptomatic children, adolescents, or adults presenting for clinical examination (in vivo studies), or extracted teeth of children or…
17 findings from 1 review
Show 14 more findings

Direct composite resin restoration vs Amalgam restoration

Restoration failure · People with permanent or adult posterior teeth requiring restoration (parallel-group trials involved children aged 6 to 12 years)

Direct composite resin restoration may leads to higher restoration failure rate compared with amalgam restoration (low certainty).

3 findings from 1 review

Chemotherapy (any regimen; added to, or compared with, locoregional treatment) vs Locoregional treatment and/or an alternative chemotherapy regimen

Quality of life · People receiving curative-intent treatment for oral cavity and oropharyngeal (squamous cell) cancer

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Rubber dam isolation and moisture control (alone or with saliva aspiration) vs Cotton rolls (with or without saliva aspiration)

Restoration survival · Dental patients undergoing direct or indirect restorative treatment (no age or gender restriction)

Rubber dam isolation and moisture control (alone or with saliva… may leads to higher survival rate of restorations (6 months) compared with cotton rolls (with or without saliva aspiration) (low certainty).

4 findings from 1 review
Show 1 more finding

CarieScan Pro device vs Reference standard (histology, excavation, or enhanced visual examination)

Sensitivity · Children, adolescents, or adults presenting asymptomatically or suspected of early enamel caries (in vivo), or extracted teeth of…
1 finding from 1 review
  • Electrical conductance for the detection of dental caries 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes
    Up to 3 months between index test and reference standard (in vivo studies)
    CarieScan Pro (3 studies, 244 tooth surfaces): sensitivity ranged from 0.55 to 0.91. No evidence of a difference in accuracy by device type (Chi2=0.05, df=1, P=0.82).
    3 studies
    GRADE not reported

Analogue (conventional) radiographs vs Digital radiographs (direct within-person / paired comparison); reference standard: histology, excavation, or enhanced visual examination

Specificity for detection and diagnosis of early (enamel) caries · Asymptomatic children, adolescents, or adults presenting for clinical examination (in vivo studies), or extracted teeth of children or…
2 findings from 1 review

Sealing using sealant materials vs Selective carious tissue removal (selective excavation, SE)

Failure of therapy · Children and/or adults with permanent or primary teeth, vital (sensitive) pulps, and cavitated or dentine carious lesions conventionally…

It is very uncertain whether sealing using sealant materials changes failure of therapy compared with selective carious tissue removal (selective excavation, SE) (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Analogue (conventional) radiographs vs Reference standard (histology, excavation, or enhanced visual examination)

Specificity for detection and diagnosis of early (enamel) caries · Asymptomatic children, adolescents, or adults presenting for clinical examination (in vivo studies), or extracted teeth of children or…
1 finding from 1 review

Non-selective carious tissue removal and conventional restoration (CR) vs Stepwise carious tissue removal (SW)

Failure of therapy · Children and/or adults with permanent or primary teeth, vital (sensitive) pulps, and cavitated or dentine carious lesions conventionally…

Non-selective carious tissue removal and conventional restoration (CR) probably leads to higher failure of therapy compared with stepwise carious tissue removal (SW) (moderate certainty).

2 findings from 1 review

Induction chemotherapy plus locoregional treatment (radiotherapy and/or surgery) vs Locoregional treatment (radiotherapy and/or surgery) alone

Overall survival, induction platinum + 5-fluorouracil prior to surgery vs surgery alone · People receiving curative-intent treatment for oral cavity and oropharyngeal (squamous cell) cancer

Induction chemotherapy plus locoregional treatment (radiotherapy… showed no clear difference in overall survival, induction platinum + 5-fluorouracil prior to… compared with locoregional treatment (radiotherapy and/or surgery) alone (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Selective carious tissue removal (selective excavation, SE) vs Hall Technique (sealing with a preformed metal crown)

Failure of therapy · Children and/or adults with permanent or primary teeth, vital (sensitive) pulps, and cavitated or dentine carious lesions conventionally…

It is very uncertain whether selective carious tissue removal (selective excavation, SE) changes failure of therapy compared with hall Technique (sealing with a preformed metal crown) (very low certainty).

2 findings from 1 review