Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

2,890 questions · 3,917 findings · 272 reviews · Oral Health

No studies found 429 · 11%GRADE not reported 2,657 · 67.8%Very low 512 · 13.1%Low 219 · 5.6%Moderate 80 · 2%High 20 · 0.5%

Primary school-based behavioural intervention (both oral hygiene and dietary components) vs No treatment (or delayed treatment)

Behavioural outcomes (reported and/or other measures, e.g. data tracking toothbrushes and collecting food wrappers) · Children aged 4 to 12 years attending primary school

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Fluoride varnish vs placebo or no treatment

Proportion of children developing new caries (permanent) · Children and adolescents aged 16 years or less

Fluoride varnish showed no clear difference in proportion of children developing one or more new caries (permanent… compared with placebo or no treatment; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Resin-based fissure sealant vs No comparator

Association between loss of complete retention risk and caries occurrence risk · Patients with fissure-sealed permanent molar teeth

Loss of complete sealant retention was directly associated with caries occurrence for resin-based sealants in the main analysis (regression slope 0.89, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.23; ungraded).

2 findings from 1 review

Visual screening (oral visual inspection) by trained health workers vs No screening

Test performance (sensitivity and specificity) · Apparently healthy adults aged 35 years or older (general population), living in 13 clusters in rural areas of Trivandrum city, Kerala,…
1 finding from 1 review

Prophylactic systemic antibiotics (amoxicillin) vs placebo or no antibiotic

Prosthesis failure · Adults undergoing dental implant placement

Prophylactic systemic antibiotics (amoxicillin) showed no clear difference in prosthesis failure compared with no antibiotics or placebo; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Toluidine blue (visual staining) vs No screening

Outcome not reported · Planned population: general population or high-risk / opportunistic screening groups (no eligible study)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Resin composite restorations containing antibacterial agents vs Non-antibacterial containing composite restorations

Postoperative sensitivity, marginal adaptation, anatomic form and other clinical outcomes (USPHS restoration quality; includes tooth vitality and pulpitis) · Adults and adolescents in any age group with restorations in the permanent dentition and children with restorations in the primary dentition

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Prophylactic systemic antibiotics (amoxicillin) vs placebo or no antibiotic

Postoperative infection · Adults undergoing dental implant placement

Prophylactic systemic antibiotics (amoxicillin) showed no clear difference in postoperative infection compared with no antibiotics or placebo; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Primary school-based behavioural intervention (both oral hygiene and dietary components) vs No treatment (or delayed treatment)

Frequency of cariogenic food and drink consumption · Children aged 4 to 12 years attending primary school
1 finding from 1 review

Brush biopsy (oral cytology) vs No screening

Outcome not reported · Planned population: general population or high-risk / opportunistic screening groups (no eligible study)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Primary school-based behavioural intervention (both oral hygiene and dietary components) vs No treatment (or delayed treatment)

Frequency of toothbrushing · Children aged 4 to 12 years attending primary school
1 finding from 1 review

Fluorescence imaging / light-based techniques vs No screening

Outcome not reported · Planned population: general population or high-risk / opportunistic screening groups (no eligible study)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review