Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

238 questions · 268 findings · 39 reviews · All outcomes

No studies found 55 · 20.5%GRADE not reported 154 · 57.5%Very low 23 · 8.6%Low 23 · 8.6%Moderate 13 · 4.9%High 0 · 0%

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

Dental knowledge · Adults (aged 18 or over) diagnosed with periodontal disease (gingivitis or periodontitis)
1 finding from 1 review

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

Self-efficacy beliefs (tooth brushing) · Adults (aged 18 or over) diagnosed with periodontal disease (gingivitis or periodontitis)
1 finding from 1 review

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

Self-reported flossing · Adults (aged 18 or over) diagnosed with periodontal disease (gingivitis or periodontitis)
1 finding from 1 review

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

Self-reported tooth brushing · Adults (aged 18 or over) diagnosed with periodontal disease (gingivitis or periodontitis)
1 finding from 1 review

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

Self-reported tooth brushing · Adults (aged 18 or over) diagnosed with periodontal disease (gingivitis or periodontitis)
1 finding from 1 review

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

Secondary caries · Patients requiring dental restoration; permanent teeth

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).

2 findings from 1 review

Composite resin vs Glass ionomer cement (GIC)

Secondary caries · Patients requiring dental restoration; permanent teeth

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).

2 findings from 1 review

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

Secondary caries · Patients requiring dental restoration; deciduous (primary) teeth

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).

1 finding from 1 review

Compomer (Dyract) vs Glass ionomer cement (GIC)

Secondary caries · Patients requiring dental restoration; permanent teeth

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).

1 finding from 1 review

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

Secondary caries · Patients requiring dental restoration; deciduous (primary) teeth

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).

1 finding from 1 review

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

Secondary caries · Patients requiring dental restoration; permanent teeth

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).

1 finding from 1 review

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

Secondary caries · Patients requiring dental restoration; deciduous (primary) teeth

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).

1 finding from 1 review

Compomer (Dyract) vs Resin composite restoration

Secondary caries · Patients requiring dental restoration; deciduous (primary) teeth

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).

1 finding from 1 review

Light-cured resin-modified glass ionomer cement vs Resin composite restoration

Secondary caries · Patients requiring dental restoration; deciduous (primary) teeth

In deciduous teeth at 1 year, a single small trial found no difference in secondary caries between RMGIC and resin composite (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.07-15.81; ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Amalgam (AAG) vs Glass ionomer cement (GIC)

Secondary caries · Patients requiring dental restoration; permanent teeth

Over 2 or more years in permanent teeth, amalgam had a higher risk of secondary caries than GIC (RR 1.79, 95% CI 1.04-3.09; low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Glass ionomer cement vs Resin composite restoration

Secondary caries · Patients requiring dental restoration; permanent teeth

Over 2 or more years in permanent teeth, GIC probably reduces secondary caries versus resin composite (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.28-0.91; moderate certainty).

2 findings from 1 review

Amalgam (AAG) vs Resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC)

Secondary caries · Patients requiring dental restoration; deciduous (primary) teeth

Over 2 or more years in deciduous teeth, amalgam probably had a higher risk of secondary caries than RMGIC (RR 2.46, 95% CI 1.42-4.27; moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Giomer (GIONOMER) vs Resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC)

Secondary caries · Patients requiring dental restoration; deciduous (primary) teeth

Over 2 or more years in deciduous teeth, the difference in secondary caries between giomer and RMGIC is uncertain (RR 1.66, 95% CI 0.49-5.61; low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review