Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

518 questions · 558 findings · 63 reviews

No studies found 77 · 13.8%GRADE not reported 143 · 25.6%Very low 89 · 15.9%Low 137 · 24.6%Moderate 95 · 17%High 17 · 3%

nCaF2 primer vs Control Transbond primer

White spot lesions assessed by laser fluorescence (DIAGNOdent) · Patients undergoing fixed orthodontic (fixed appliance) treatment (adolescents and adults, ages 12 to 35)

A single small split-mouth RCT found the nCaF2-containing primer reduced demineralization (DIAGNOdent) but showed no significant clinical white spot lesion difference at debonding (ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Partial pulpotomy with tri-calcium silicate material (MTA or Biodentine) vs No comparator

Overall success (composite of clinical and radiographic success) · Adults aged 18 years or older with mature permanent teeth and carious pulp exposure

Partial pulpotomy with MTA or Biodentine had a pooled success rate of 86.8%.

1 finding from 1 review

Bleaching gel with added remineralising agent (fluoride, calcium, or CPP-ACP) vs Bleaching alone (no remineralising agent)

Whitening (bleaching) efficacy · Demineralised / white-spot-lesion enamel (in vitro specimens)

Low-quality in vitro evidence indicates that adding fluoride or other remineralising agents does not impair the whitening/bleaching effect (ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Bleaching gel with added remineralising agent (fluoride, calcium, or CPP-ACP) vs Bleaching alone (no remineralising agent)

Enamel mineral loss / remineralisation · Demineralised / white-spot-lesion enamel (in vitro specimens)

Low-quality in vitro evidence indicates that adding fluoride, calcium or CPP-ACP to bleaching agents can reduce enamel mineral loss (ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Orthodontic adhesive/composite containing nano-calcium fluoride (n-CaF2), alone or with DMAHDM vs Conventional/control orthodontic adhesive (e.g., Transbond XT) or negative control

Enamel remineralization extent · Human enamel specimens around orthodontic brackets (in vitro)

In vitro, a nano-CaF2-containing orthodontic cement showed significant enamel remineralization versus control in a single study (ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Orthodontic adhesives containing nano-amorphous calcium phosphate (n-ACP) particles/nanoparticles vs Conventional/control orthodontic adhesive (e.g., Transbond XT) or negative control

Enamel remineralization extent · Human enamel specimens around orthodontic brackets (in vitro)

In vitro, n-ACP-containing orthodontic adhesives showed significant enamel remineralization versus control in both studies, but evidence is weak (only 2 studies; ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Experimental orthodontic adhesive containing amorphous fluorinated calcium phosphate nanoparticles (n-AFCP) vs Conventional/control orthodontic adhesive (e.g., Transbond XT) or negative control

Enamel remineralization extent and color change · Human enamel specimens around orthodontic brackets (in vitro)

In vitro, an n-AFCP-containing orthodontic primer showed significant enamel remineralization and less color change versus control in a single study (ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Dental cavity liner (e.g. calcium hydroxide, glass ionomer, resin-modified glass ionomer, or flowable composite) placed under the restoration vs No liner (resin-based composite bonded directly to the tooth)

Postoperative hypersensitivity (POH), patient-reported (dichotomous yes/no) · Adults or children with a Class I or Class II resin-based composite restoration in a permanent posterior tooth

Dental cavity liner (e.g. calcium hydroxide, glass ionomer,… showed no clear difference in postoperative hypersensitivity (POH), patient-reported (dichotomous… compared with no liner (resin-based composite bonded directly to the tooth) (low certainty).

3 findings from 1 review

Dental cavity liner (e.g. calcium hydroxide, glass ionomer, resin-modified glass ionomer, or flowable composite) placed under the restoration vs No liner (resin-based composite bonded directly to the tooth)

Postoperative hypersensitivity (POH), cold response measurement (time in seconds) · Adults or children with a Class I or Class II resin-based composite restoration in a permanent posterior tooth

Dental cavity liner (e.g. calcium hydroxide, glass ionomer,… may leads to higher postoperative hypersensitivity (POH), cold response measurement… compared with no liner (resin-based composite bonded directly to the tooth) (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Dental cavity liner (e.g. calcium hydroxide, glass ionomer, resin-modified glass ionomer, or flowable composite) placed under the restoration vs No liner (resin-based composite bonded directly to the tooth)

Restoration failure · Adults or children with a Class I or Class II resin-based composite restoration in a permanent posterior tooth
2 findings from 1 review

Dental cavity liner (e.g. calcium hydroxide, glass ionomer, resin-modified glass ionomer, or flowable composite) placed under the restoration vs No liner (resin-based composite bonded directly to the tooth)

Cost of materials · Adults or children with a Class I or Class II resin-based composite restoration in a permanent posterior tooth
1 finding from 1 review

Dental cavity liner (e.g. calcium hydroxide, glass ionomer, resin-modified glass ionomer, or flowable composite) placed under the restoration vs No liner (resin-based composite bonded directly to the tooth)

Postoperative hypersensitivity (POH), cold response measurement (VAS score) · Adults or children with a Class I or Class II resin-based composite restoration in a permanent posterior tooth

Dental cavity liner (e.g. calcium hydroxide, glass ionomer,… showed no clear difference in postoperative hypersensitivity (POH), cold response measurement (VAS… compared with no liner (resin-based composite bonded directly to the tooth); GRADE not reported.

2 findings from 1 review

Dental cavity liner (e.g. calcium hydroxide, glass ionomer, resin-modified glass ionomer, or flowable composite) placed under the restoration vs No liner (resin-based composite bonded directly to the tooth)

Postoperative hypersensitivity (POH), patient-reported (VAS score) · Adults or children with a Class I or Class II resin-based composite restoration in a permanent posterior tooth

Dental cavity liner (e.g. calcium hydroxide, glass ionomer,… led to lower postoperative hypersensitivity (POH), patient-reported (VAS score) compared with no liner (resin-based composite bonded directly to the tooth); GRADE not reported.

2 findings from 1 review

Dental cavity liner (e.g. calcium hydroxide, glass ionomer, resin-modified glass ionomer, or flowable composite) placed under the restoration vs No liner (resin-based composite bonded directly to the tooth)

Adverse events · Adults or children with a Class I or Class II resin-based composite restoration in a permanent posterior tooth

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Dental cavity liner (e.g. calcium hydroxide, glass ionomer, resin-modified glass ionomer, or flowable composite) placed under the restoration vs No cavity liner or a different liner material

Restoration longevity · Patients with deep caries lesions in mature or immature permanent (posterior) teeth, with no symptoms or reversible pulpitis

Cavity liners may make little or no difference to restoration longevity (high success across groups; low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Dental cavity liner (e.g. calcium hydroxide, glass ionomer, resin-modified glass ionomer, or flowable composite) placed under the restoration vs No cavity liner or a different liner material

Treatment failure · Patients with deep caries lesions in mature or immature permanent (posterior) teeth, with no symptoms or reversible pulpitis

The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of cavity liners on treatment failure; no significant difference between lined and unlined (or differently lined) restorations was found (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Dental cavity liner (e.g. calcium hydroxide, glass ionomer, resin-modified glass ionomer, or flowable composite) placed under the restoration vs No cavity liner or a different liner material

Postoperative hypersensitivity (POH), patient-reported (VAS score) · Patients with deep caries lesions in mature or immature permanent (posterior) teeth, with no symptoms or reversible pulpitis

The evidence is very uncertain whether cavity liners reduce postoperative hypersensitivity; no significant difference was found overall (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Dental cavity liner (e.g. calcium hydroxide, glass ionomer, resin-modified glass ionomer, or flowable composite) placed under the restoration vs No cavity liner or a different liner material

Tooth survival · Patients with deep caries lesions in mature or immature permanent (posterior) teeth, with no symptoms or reversible pulpitis

Cavity liners may make little or no difference to tooth survival (99.4% survival across groups; low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Dental cavity liner (e.g. calcium hydroxide, glass ionomer, resin-modified glass ionomer, or flowable composite) placed under the restoration vs No cavity liner or a different liner material

Oral health-related quality of life · Patients with deep caries lesions in mature or immature permanent (posterior) teeth, with no symptoms or reversible pulpitis

No included study reported oral health-related quality of life (a planned outcome), so no evidence is available.

1 finding from 1 review

Dental cavity liner (e.g. calcium hydroxide, glass ionomer, resin-modified glass ionomer, or flowable composite) placed under the restoration vs No cavity liner or a different liner material

Secondary prevention of caries · Patients with deep caries lesions in mature or immature permanent (posterior) teeth, with no symptoms or reversible pulpitis

Cavity liners may make little or no difference to secondary caries prevention (~100% prevention across groups; low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review