Search

What do systematic reviews say?

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

2,745 questions · 4,389 findings · 203 reviews · Oral Health

No studies found 39 · 0.9%GRADE not reported 3,844 · 87.6%Very low 198 · 4.5%Low 137 · 3.1%Moderate 134 · 3.1%High 37 · 0.8%

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

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

No significant reference-standard difference for LFpen at the advanced threshold (RDOR 0.96, 0.12 to 7.77).

1 finding from 1 review

Fluorescence camera (FC) 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

Fluorescence camera on occlusal surfaces of permanent teeth (initial-lesion threshold): accuracy similar among the three methods (very low inconsistency); heterogeneity I2=0%. Diagnostic accuracy was not formally graded (GRADE not used).

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) · Primary teeth, occlusal surfaces, with suspected caries lesions

Laser fluorescence on occlusal surfaces of primary teeth (more advanced-lesion threshold): pooled DOR lowest for LF among the three methods; heterogeneity I2=23%. Diagnostic accuracy was not formally graded (GRADE not used).

2 findings from 1 review

Laser fluorescence (LF; DIAGNOdent) vs Reference standard

Initial 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=75%; no GRADE rating was reported.

2 findings from 1 review

PDHA program vs Baseline pre-intervention service-delivery scenario

School-based oral health promotion services · Alaska children

The PDHA program was projected to raise school-based oral health promotion service receipt from 53% to more than 90%, without a GRADE rating.

1 finding from 1 review

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

Diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity, specificity) - not pooled · Permanent teeth (occlusal and smooth surfaces), with suspected caries lesions

Only 3 QLF studies were included, so no pooled estimate of QLF diagnostic accuracy could be calculated (evidence not graded).

1 finding from 1 review

Primary dental health aide (PDHA) service-delivery models (PDHA program; PDHA + intensive staffing; PDHA + robust prevention) vs Baseline pre-intervention service-delivery scenario

Projected mean DMFT (children below 5 years) · Alaska Native children (below age 18)

A simulation projected mean DMFT in children under 5 would fall from 7.4 to 4.9 under the PDHA model (certainty not graded).

1 finding from 1 review

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

Diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity, specificity) - not pooled · Permanent and primary teeth, smooth surfaces, with suspected caries lesions

Only 2 LF studies assessed smooth surfaces, so no pooled estimate was possible; both reported higher specificity than sensitivity (evidence not graded).

1 finding from 1 review

ART sealant using high-viscosity glass ionomer (press-finger technique) vs No comparator

Retention of sealant (complete or partial retention) · Pits and fissures of permanent (posterior) teeth

High-viscosity glass-ionomer ART sealants showed 4-year retention of 68% (95% CI 61-75%); evidence ungraded.

6 findings from 1 review
Show 3 more findings

ART sealant using high-viscosity glass ionomer (press-finger technique) vs No comparator

Caries-free sealed pits and fissures · Permanent teeth with sealed pits and fissures

The pooled caries-free rate was 85% at 6 years.

6 findings from 1 review
Show 3 more findings

High-viscosity glass-ionomer ART restorations vs No comparator

Restoration survival · Permanent posterior teeth with single-surface cavities

The pooled survival rate was 93% at 2 years.

6 findings from 1 review
Show 3 more findings

High-viscosity glass-ionomer ART restorations vs No comparator

Restoration survival · Permanent posterior teeth with multiple-surface cavities

The pooled survival rate was 41% at 2 years.

3 findings from 1 review

Multiple-surface ART restoration using high-viscosity glass ionomer vs No comparator

Restoration survival · Primary posterior teeth with multiple-surface cavities

Multiple-surface high-viscosity glass-ionomer ART restorations in primary teeth had moderate 2-year survival (62%, 95% CI 51-73%); evidence ungraded.

3 findings from 1 review

High-viscosity glass-ionomer ART restorations vs No comparator

Restoration survival · Primary posterior teeth with single-surface cavities

The pooled survival rate was 95% at 1 year.

3 findings from 1 review

ART sealant using high-viscosity glass ionomer (press-finger technique) vs No comparator

Caries-free sealed pits and fissures · Pits and fissures of permanent (posterior) teeth

Pits and fissures sealed with high-viscosity glass-ionomer ART sealants remained dentine lesion-free in 100% (95% CI 99-100%) at 1-year; evidence ungraded.

6 findings from 1 review
Show 3 more findings