Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

335 questions · 406 findings · 23 reviews

No studies found 93 · 22.9%GRADE not reported 166 · 40.9%Very low 66 · 16.3%Low 65 · 16%Moderate 14 · 3.4%High 2 · 0.5%

Higher drinking-water fluoride exposure vs Lower water fluoride concentration (concurrent control)

Adverse effects: dental fluorosis · Populations of all ages (mostly children) exposed to drinking water with differing fluoride concentrations

Higher water fluoride concentration (fluoridated water; natural or… may leads to higher dental fluorosis of any level (all severities) compared with lower water fluoride concentration (concurrent control) (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

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

Secondary caries · 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

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

Patient's view and satisfaction with the treatment · 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

Compomer (Dyract) vs Amalgam (Tytin)

Secondary caries · Children aged 12 years or younger with tooth decay involving at least one tooth in the primary dentition, symptomatic or symptom free

Compomer (Dyract) showed no clear difference in secondary caries at 24 months compared with amalgam (Tytin); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Resin-modified glass ionomer (Vitremer) vs Amalgam restoration

Marginal integrity, wear, surface texture, staining and secondary caries (Ryge criteria) at 6-12 months · Children aged 12 years or younger with tooth decay involving at least one tooth in the primary dentition, symptomatic or symptom free
1 finding from 1 review
  • Marginal integrity, wear, surface texture, axial contour, staining and secondary caries (Ryge criteria) at 6 and 12 months: odds ratios not estimable - no events recorded, implying equal performance of the two materials.
    1 study · 60 participants
    GRADE not reported

Fluoride gel combined with fluoride mouthrinse vs Fluoride gel

Unacceptability of treatment (drop-outs / leaving study early) · Children and adolescents aged 16 years or less

Fluoride gel combined with fluoride mouthrinse showed no clear difference in unacceptability of treatment (drop-outs / leaving study early) compared with fluoride gel alone; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Fluoride varnish combined with fluoride toothpaste vs Fluoride varnish

Unacceptability of treatment (drop-outs / leaving study early) · Children and adolescents aged 16 years or less

Fluoride varnish combined with fluoride toothpaste showed no clear difference in unacceptability of treatment (drop-outs / leaving study early) compared with fluoride varnish alone; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Fluoride varnish combined with fluoride toothpaste vs Fluoride toothpaste alone

Unacceptability of treatment (drop-outs / leaving study early) · Children and adolescents aged 16 years or less

Fluoride varnish combined with fluoride toothpaste showed no clear difference in unacceptability of treatment (drop-outs / leaving study early) compared with fluoride toothpaste alone; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Fluoride mouthrinse (0.05-0.32% sodium fluoride or amine fluoride) added to daily fluoride toothpaste vs Fluoride mouthrinse

Unacceptability of treatment (drop-outs / leaving study early) · Children and adolescents aged 16 years or less

Fluoride mouthrinse combined with fluoride toothpaste showed no clear difference in unacceptability of treatment (drop-outs / leaving study early) compared with fluoride mouthrinse alone; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Fluoride mouthrinse (0.05-0.32% sodium fluoride or amine fluoride) added to daily fluoride toothpaste vs Fluoride toothpaste alone

Unacceptability of treatment (drop-outs / leaving study early) · Children and adolescents aged 16 years or less

Fluoride mouthrinse combined with fluoride toothpaste showed no clear difference in unacceptability of treatment (drop-outs / leaving study early) compared with fluoride toothpaste alone; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Fluoride mouthrinse, gel or varnish combined with fluoride toothpaste (any combined regimen) vs Fluoride toothpaste alone

Adverse effects (tooth staining and other side effects) · Children and adolescents aged 16 years or less
1 finding from 1 review

Fluoride mouthrinse, gel or varnish combined with fluoride toothpaste (any combined regimen) vs Fluoride toothpaste alone

Adverse effects: dental fluorosis · Children and adolescents aged 16 years or less

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Fluoride mouthrinse, gel or varnish combined with fluoride toothpaste (any combined regimen) vs Fluoride toothpaste alone

Unacceptability of treatment (drop-outs / leaving study early) · Children and adolescents aged 16 years or less

Fluoride mouthrinse, gel or varnish combined with fluoride… showed no clear difference in unacceptability of treatment (drop-outs / leaving study early) compared with fluoride toothpaste alone; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Silver diamine fluoride (SDF) vs Atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) with glass ionomer cement (GIC) or glass ionomer material

Adverse effects · Children and adults (with or without carious lesions)
1 finding from 1 review

Silver diamine fluoride (SDF) plus fluoride varnish vs Sealants plus fluoride varnish (with or without restorations)

Adverse effects · Children and adults (with or without carious lesions)
1 finding from 1 review

Silver diamine fluoride (SDF) vs Atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) with glass ionomer cement (GIC) or glass ionomer material

Aesthetics · Children and adults (with or without carious lesions)
1 finding from 1 review

Chlorhexidine gel (0.12%) vs no treatment

Mutans streptococci prevalence (presence/absence) · Children and adolescents below 18 years at study start (included studies: children from birth to 15 years), with mixed, permanent or…

It is very uncertain whether chlorhexidine gel (0.12%) changes mutans streptococci prevalence (presence/absence) compared with no treatment (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Chlorhexidine oral product (one formulation/concentration) vs Another chlorhexidine formulation, concentration or application frequency

Outcome not reported · Children and adolescents below 18 years at study start (included studies: children from birth to 15 years), with mixed, permanent or…

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review