Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

2,297 questions · 3,638 findings · 215 reviews · Oral Health

No studies found 98 · 2.7%GRADE not reported 2,946 · 81%Very low 263 · 7.2%Low 158 · 4.3%Moderate 137 · 3.8%High 36 · 1%

Fluorescence camera (FC) vs Reference standard

Initial caries lesion detection · Primary teeth with occlusal surfaces

Pooled sensitivity was reported, but the numerical estimate is not stated in the supplied text or attached figures; I²=0%; no GRADE rating was reported.

2 findings from 1 review

Laser fluorescence (DIAGNOdent 2190/pen) vs Reference standard (histology, excavation, or enhanced visual examination)

Diagnostic accuracy (pooled sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio, summary-ROC AUC) · Permanent teeth, occlusal surfaces, with suspected caries lesions

Pen-type laser fluorescence on occlusal surfaces of permanent teeth (more advanced-lesion threshold): pooled DOR for LFpen lower than for LF and FC; heterogeneity I2=73%. Diagnostic accuracy was not formally graded (GRADE not used).

2 findings from 1 review

Laser fluorescence (DIAGNOdent 2190/pen) vs Reference standard

More advanced caries lesion detection · Permanent teeth with occlusal surfaces

Pooled sensitivity was reported, but the numerical estimate is not stated in the supplied text or attached figures; I²=73%; no GRADE rating was reported.

2 findings from 1 review

Laser fluorescence (LF; DIAGNOdent) vs Reference standard (histology, excavation, or enhanced visual examination)

Relative DOR by reference standard (LF, advanced, occlusal permanent) · Permanent teeth, occlusal surfaces, with suspected caries lesions

No significant difference vs histological for LF at the advanced threshold (RDOR 0.62, 0.15 to 2.46).

2 findings from 1 review

Laser fluorescence (DIAGNOdent 2190/pen) vs Reference standard

Initial caries lesion detection · Permanent teeth with occlusal surfaces

Pooled specificity was reported, but the numerical estimate is not stated in the supplied text or attached figures; I²=54%; no GRADE rating was reported.

2 findings from 1 review

Glass ionomer-based sealant vs Resin-based sealant

Caries occurrence on sealed teeth · Sealed permanent teeth

Glass-ionomer and resin-based fissure sealants showed no statistically significant difference in caries occurrence on sealed permanent teeth at 12 months (no GRADE rating).

3 findings from 1 review

Laser fluorescence (DIAGNOdent 2190/pen) vs Reference standard

More advanced caries lesion detection · Permanent teeth with approximal surfaces

Pooled specificity was reported, but the numerical estimate is not stated in the supplied text or attached figures; I²=84%; no GRADE rating was reported.

2 findings from 1 review

Laser fluorescence (LF; DIAGNOdent) vs Reference standard (histology, excavation, or enhanced visual examination)

Diagnostic accuracy (pooled sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio, summary-ROC AUC) · Permanent teeth, occlusal surfaces, with suspected caries lesions

Laser fluorescence on occlusal surfaces of permanent teeth (initial-lesion threshold): accuracy (sensitivity, specificity, DOR, PLR, NLR, sROC AUC) similar among LF, LFpen and FC; heterogeneity I2=65%. Diagnostic accuracy was not formally graded (GRADE not used).

2 findings from 1 review

Laser fluorescence (DIAGNOdent 2190/pen) vs Reference standard

Initial caries lesion detection · Permanent teeth with approximal surfaces

Pooled specificity was reported, but the numerical estimate is not stated in the supplied text or attached figures; I²=93%; no GRADE rating was reported.

2 findings from 1 review

Capitation remuneration vs Fee-for-service remuneration

Patient outcomes: mean percentage of 0- to 15-year-olds having one or more teeth extracted · Children (0- to 15-year-olds) undergoing routine continuing dental care at 354 dental practices, in matched pairs of Health Service…

Capitation remuneration may leads to lower patient outcomes: mean percentage of 0- to 15-year-olds having one… compared with fee-for-service remuneration (low certainty).

4 findings from 1 review
Show 1 more finding

Capitation remuneration vs Fee-for-service remuneration

Measures of health service utilisation: mean number of visits per 0- to 15-year-old · Children (0- to 15-year-olds) undergoing routine continuing dental care at 354 dental practices, in matched pairs of Health Service…

Capitation remuneration showed no clear difference in measures of health service utilisation: mean number of visits per 0-… compared with fee-for-service remuneration (low certainty).

4 findings from 1 review
Show 1 more finding

Laser fluorescence (DIAGNOdent 2190/pen) vs Reference standard (histology, excavation, or enhanced visual examination)

Relative DOR by reference standard (LFpen, initial, occlusal permanent) · Permanent teeth, occlusal surfaces, with suspected caries lesions

No significant reference-standard difference for LFpen at the initial threshold (RDOR 4.41, 0.19 to 103.92).

1 finding from 1 review

Laser fluorescence (DIAGNOdent 2190/pen) vs Reference standard

Initial caries lesion detection · Primary teeth with approximal surfaces

Pooled sensitivity was reported, but the numerical estimate is not stated in the supplied text or attached figures; I²=84%; no GRADE rating was reported.

2 findings from 1 review

Laser fluorescence (DIAGNOdent 2190/pen) vs Reference standard (histology, excavation, or enhanced visual examination)

Diagnostic accuracy (pooled sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio, summary-ROC AUC) · Primary teeth, occlusal surfaces, with suspected caries lesions

Pen-type laser fluorescence on occlusal surfaces of primary teeth (more advanced-lesion threshold): pooled DOR intermediate for LFpen among the three methods; heterogeneity I2=31%. Diagnostic accuracy was not formally graded (GRADE not used).

2 findings from 1 review

Laser fluorescence (DIAGNOdent 2190/pen) vs Reference standard (histology, excavation, or enhanced visual examination)

Diagnostic accuracy (pooled sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio, summary-ROC AUC) · Permanent teeth, approximal surfaces, with suspected caries lesions

Pen-type laser fluorescence on approximal surfaces of permanent teeth (more advanced-lesion threshold): LFpen showed similar values at both thresholds; heterogeneity I2=84%. Diagnostic accuracy was not formally graded (GRADE not used).

2 findings from 1 review

Laser fluorescence (DIAGNOdent 2190/pen) vs Reference standard

More advanced caries lesion detection · Primary teeth with occlusal surfaces

Pooled specificity was reported, but the numerical estimate is not stated in the supplied text or attached figures; I²=31%; no GRADE rating was reported.

2 findings from 1 review

Laser fluorescence (LF; DIAGNOdent) vs Reference standard

Initial caries lesion detection · Permanent teeth with occlusal surfaces

Pooled sensitivity was reported, but the numerical estimate is not stated in the supplied text or attached figures; I²=65%; no GRADE rating was reported.

2 findings from 1 review

Capitation remuneration vs Fee-for-service remuneration

Mean number of decayed teeth (mean DT) · Children (0- to 15-year-olds) undergoing routine continuing dental care at 354 dental practices, in matched pairs of Health Service…

Capitation remuneration showed no clear difference in patient outcomes: mean number of decayed teeth per 14- to… compared with fee-for-service remuneration (low certainty).

4 findings from 1 review
Show 1 more finding