Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

336 questions · 427 findings · 28 reviews · Dental caries

No studies found 48 · 11.2%GRADE not reported 284 · 66.5%Very low 46 · 10.8%Low 25 · 5.9%Moderate 24 · 5.6%High 0 · 0%

DHAT-delivered dental care vs Not applicable (single-group prevalence)

Clinical care quality · Alaska dental health aide therapists

Four newly trained DHATs met stated clinical care standards in a qualitative evaluation, without a GRADE rating.

1 finding from 1 review

A permanent restorative material or technique (e.g. amalgam; glass ionomer (type I-IV); composite resin (macrofilled, microfilled, hybrid, nanofilled); resin-modified glass ionomer (compomer, giomer); cement/cermet; stainless steel or nickel-chrome crown; pre-fabricated resin/porcelain veneer facing; microabrasion) vs A different permanent restorative material or technique

Outcome not reported · Children and adolescents under 18 years with amelogenesis imperfecta requiring restorative care of anterior teeth, irrespective of…

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

DHAT-delivered dental care vs Dentist-delivered dental care

Caregiver satisfaction · Caregivers of Alaska Native children aged 6 to 17 years

More than 90% of caregivers reported being usually or always satisfied with DHAT care, without a GRADE rating.

1 finding from 1 review

A permanent restorative material or technique (e.g. amalgam; glass ionomer (type I-IV); composite resin (macrofilled, microfilled, hybrid, nanofilled); resin-modified glass ionomer (compomer, giomer); cement/cermet; stainless steel or nickel-chrome crown; pre-fabricated resin/porcelain veneer facing; microabrasion) vs A different permanent restorative material or technique

Outcome not reported · Children and adolescents under 18 years with amelogenesis imperfecta requiring restorative care of posterior teeth, irrespective of…

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

DHAT-delivered dental care vs Dentist-delivered dental care

Composite restoration deficiency · Alaska dental health aide therapists

Composite restoration deficiency was 15% for DHATs versus 12% for dentists, without a GRADE rating.

1 finding from 1 review

DHAT-delivered dental care vs Dentist-delivered dental care

Consistency of diagnosis and postoperative complications · Alaska dental health aide therapists

No significant difference was reported between DHATs and dentists in diagnosis consistency or postoperative complications, without a GRADE rating.

1 finding from 1 review

Ongoing BBTD Prevention Program vs BBTD Prevention Program discontinued in 1989

Baby bottle tooth decay prevalence · Alaska Native and American Indian Head Start children

Sites discontinuing the prevention program had a non-significant 15% reduction in tooth decay rate, without a GRADE rating.

2 findings from 1 review

DHAT-delivered dental care vs Dentist-delivered dental care

Stainless steel crown preparation and placement deficiency · Alaska dental health aide therapists

No stainless steel crown preparation deficiencies were reported; placement deficiency was 3% for DHATs versus 9% for dentists, without a GRADE rating.

1 finding from 1 review

DHAT-delivered dental care vs Dentist-delivered dental care

Quality of dental record keeping by DHATs · Alaska Native dental patients (children aged 6-17 and adults) and their caregivers

Dental record keeping by DHATs was high quality and met Indian Health Service guidelines (certainty not graded).

1 finding from 1 review

Mixed beam (neutron and photon) radiotherapy vs Conventional photon radiotherapy

Locoregional control · People with primary squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity (ICD-O C01-C06) or oropharynx (ICD-O C09-C10); head and neck cancer trials…

Mixed beam (neutron and photon) radiotherapy showed no clear difference in locoregional control compared with conventional photon radiotherapy; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Altered fractionation radiotherapy (hyperfractionated and/or accelerated) vs Conventional (standard) fractionation radiotherapy

Locoregional control · People with primary squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity (ICD-O C01-C06) or oropharynx (ICD-O C09-C10); head and neck cancer trials…

Hyperfractionated/accelerated radiotherapy led to lower locoregional control compared with conventional (standard) fractionation radiotherapy; GRADE not reported.

2 findings from 1 review

Accelerated radiotherapy with concomitant boost vs Conventional (standard) fractionation radiotherapy

Locoregional control · People with primary squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity (ICD-O C01-C06) or oropharynx (ICD-O C09-C10); head and neck cancer trials…
1 finding from 1 review

Low dose rate interstitial radiotherapy vs High dose rate interstitial radiotherapy

Locoregional control · People with primary squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity (ICD-O C01-C06) or oropharynx (ICD-O C09-C10); head and neck cancer trials…

Low dose rate interstitial radiotherapy showed no clear difference in locoregional control compared with high dose rate interstitial radiotherapy; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Hyperfractionated/accelerated split-course radiotherapy vs Accelerated radiotherapy with concomitant boost

Total mortality · People with primary squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity (ICD-O C01-C06) or oropharynx (ICD-O C09-C10); head and neck cancer trials…
1 finding from 1 review

Altered fractionation radiotherapy (hyperfractionated and/or accelerated) vs Conventional (standard) fractionation radiotherapy

Disease-free survival · People with primary squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity (ICD-O C01-C06) or oropharynx (ICD-O C09-C10); head and neck cancer trials…

Altered fractionation radiotherapy (hyperfractionated and/or… showed no clear difference in disease free survival compared with conventional (standard) fractionation radiotherapy; GRADE not reported.

2 findings from 1 review

Neutron radiotherapy vs Conventional photon radiotherapy

Disease-free survival · People with primary squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity (ICD-O C01-C06) or oropharynx (ICD-O C09-C10); head and neck cancer trials…

Neutron radiotherapy showed no clear difference in disease free survival compared with conventional photon radiotherapy; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Hyperfractionated radiotherapy vs Conventional (standard) fractionation radiotherapy

Locoregional control · People with primary squamous cell carcinoma of the oral cavity (ICD-O C01-C06) or oropharynx (ICD-O C09-C10); head and neck cancer trials…

Hyperfractionated radiotherapy led to lower locoregional control compared with conventional (standard) fractionation radiotherapy; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review