What do systematic reviews say?

COE with light-based detection (e.g. ViziLite Plus, Microlux/DL, VELscope, Identafi 3000) vs Conventional oral examination (COE) alone

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Clinical assessment for the detection of oral cavity cancer and potentially malignant disorders in apparently healthy… 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes
  No eligible studies; planned comparative analysis (COE vs COE with light-based detection) not populated in this version.
  0 studies
  No studies found

Concomitant (concurrent) chemoradiotherapy vs Radiotherapy alone

Concomitant (concurrent) chemoradiotherapy led to lower disease-free survival, concurrent chemoradiotherapy vs radiotherapy… compared with radiotherapy alone (non-resectable tumours); GRADE not reported.

• Interventions for the treatment of oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancer: chemotherapy 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes
  HR 0.74 [0.67, 0.80]
  13 studies
  GRADE not reported

Optical coherence tomography (OCT) vs Reference standard (histology, excavation, radiographs/microCT, or tooth separation)

• Transillumination and optical coherence tomography for the detection and diagnosis of enamel caries 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes

  Up to 3 months between index test and reference standard (in vivo; in vitro no limit if stored appropriately)
  Sensitivity 0.94 [0.88, 0.97]
  10 studies
  GRADE not reported

Direct composite resin restoration vs Amalgam restoration

Direct composite resin restoration showed no clear difference in fracture of restorations compared with amalgam restoration (low certainty).

• Direct composite resin fillings versus amalgam fillings for permanent posterior teeth 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes

  Follow-up: 5 to 7 years
  RR 0.87 [0.46, 1.64]
  2 studies · 921 participants
  Low

Visual or visual-tactile classification systems (any system: ICDAS, ERK, Nyvad, Downer, Lussi, UniViSS, or unspecified) vs Reference standard (histology, excavation, radiographs/microCT, or tooth separation)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Visual or visual‐tactile examination to detect and inform the diagnosis of enamel caries 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes

  Up to 3 months between index test and reference standard (in vivo studies) · Pit and fissure sealants
  Pre-specified heterogeneity investigation of surfaces with previously applied pit and fissure sealants: no studies reported the inclusion of sealants.
  0 studies
  No studies found

COE with vital rinsing (toluidine blue/tolonium chloride) vs Reference standard: examination and clinical evaluation by a physician/clinician with specialist knowledge or training (long-term follow-up accepted for those screened negative)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Clinical assessment for the detection of oral cavity cancer and potentially malignant disorders in apparently healthy… 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes
  No eligible study evaluated COE with vital rinse as a stand-alone screen against the reference standard in this version.
  0 studies
  No studies found

Surgery +/- radiotherapy + (adjuvant) chemotherapy vs Surgery +/- radiotherapy alone (observation or adjuvant radiotherapy only)

Surgery +/- radiotherapy + (adjuvant) chemotherapy led to lower disease-free survival, adjuvant concurrent chemoradiation vs… compared with surgery +/- radiotherapy alone (observation or adjuvant radiotherapy…; GRADE not reported.

• Interventions for the treatment of oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancer: chemotherapy 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes
  HR 0.84 [0.72, 0.97]
  4 studies
  GRADE not reported

Electrical conductance devices (electronic caries monitor (ECM) and/or CarieScan Pro), used as an adjunct to clinical oral examination vs Reference standard: histology or enhanced visual examination (with or without radiographs)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Electrical conductance for the detection of dental caries 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes

  Up to 3 months between index test and reference standard (in vivo studies)
  No eligible studies. All included studies assessed occlusal surfaces only ('All studies assessed the use of the electrical conductance devices on occlusal surfaces.'); proximal surfaces were a planned surface subgroup…
  0 studies
  No studies found

Optical coherence tomography (OCT) vs Reference standard (histology, excavation, radiographs/microCT, or tooth separation)

• Transillumination and optical coherence tomography for the detection and diagnosis of enamel caries 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes

  Up to 3 months between index test and reference standard (in vivo; in vitro no limit if stored appropriately)
  Specificity 0.83 [0.68, 0.91]
  10 studies
  GRADE not reported

Surgery +/- radiotherapy + (adjuvant) chemotherapy vs Surgery +/- radiotherapy alone (observation or adjuvant radiotherapy only)

Surgery +/- radiotherapy + (adjuvant) chemotherapy probably leads to lower overall survival, adjuvant concurrent chemoradiation vs adjuvant… compared with surgery +/- radiotherapy alone (observation or adjuvant radiotherapy… (moderate certainty).

• Interventions for the treatment of oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancer: chemotherapy 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes
  HR 0.84 [0.72, 0.98]
  4 studies · 1097 participants
  Moderate

COE with blood/salivary (biomarker) analysis vs COE with light-based detection (e.g. ViziLite Plus, Microlux/DL, VELscope, Identafi 3000)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Clinical assessment for the detection of oral cavity cancer and potentially malignant disorders in apparently healthy… 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes
  No eligible studies; planned comparative analysis (COE with light-based detection vs COE with blood/salivary analysis) not populated in this version.
  0 studies
  No studies found

Radiographic imaging methods (any: analogue radiographs, digital radiographs, or CBCT) vs Reference standard (histology, excavation, or enhanced visual examination)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Imaging modalities to inform the detection and diagnosis of early caries 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes

  Up to 3 months between index test and reference standard (in vivo studies) · Restorations (secondary caries)
  Pre-specified heterogeneity investigation of teeth with previously applied restorations (secondary caries): no study intentionally included restored teeth in its sample. Studies evaluating secondary caries were…
  0 studies
  No studies found

Induction chemotherapy plus locoregional treatment (radiotherapy and/or surgery) vs Locoregional treatment (radiotherapy and/or surgery) alone

Induction chemotherapy plus locoregional treatment (radiotherapy… showed no clear difference in overall survival, induction cisplatin + 5-fluorouracil prior to… compared with locoregional treatment (radiotherapy and/or surgery) alone (low certainty).

• Interventions for the treatment of oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancer: chemotherapy 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes
  HR 0.71 [0.37, 1.35]
  2 studies · 389 participants
  Low

Mouth self-examination (MSE) vs Reference standard: examination and clinical evaluation by a physician/clinician with specialist knowledge or training (long-term follow-up accepted for those screened negative)

• Clinical assessment for the detection of oral cavity cancer and potentially malignant disorders in apparently healthy… 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes
  Summary of findings 2 (no pooled analysis): specificity 1.00 (95% CI 1.00 to 1.00), 0.95 (95% CI 0.88 to 0.99), 0.44 (95% CI 0.20 to 0.70), and 0.54 (95% CI 0.37 to 0.69) across the 4 studies. Certainty VERY LOW.
  4 studies · 35059 participants
  Very low

Sealing using sealant materials vs Non-selective carious tissue removal and conventional restoration (CR)

• Interventions for treating cavitated or dentine carious lesions 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes

  Non-cavitated lesions, primary dentition
  Lesion progression reported narratively: Borges 2012a found 3/26 sealed lesions progressed after 1 year (split-mouth); not pooled and not GRADE-rated.
  1 study
  GRADE not reported

Visual examination (VE) vs Reference standard: examination and clinical evaluation by a physician/clinician with specialist knowledge or training (long-term follow-up accepted for those screened negative)

• Clinical assessment for the detection of oral cavity cancer and potentially malignant disorders in apparently healthy… 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes
  Summary of findings 1 (no pooled analysis): for the 7 low-prevalence studies specificity ranged from 0.94 (95% CI 0.88 to 0.97) to 0.99 (95% CI 0.98 to 1.00); for the 3 higher-prevalence studies specificity ranged from…
  10 studies · 25568 participants
  Low

Direct composite resin restoration vs Amalgam restoration

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Direct composite resin fillings versus amalgam fillings for permanent posterior teeth 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes
  We did not find any eligible studies that evaluated allergic reaction or injury (no studies reported on outcomes of relevance to injury).
  0 studies
  No studies found

Hall technique vs Non-restorative cavity control (NRCC)

• Interventions for treating cavitated or dentine carious lesions 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes

  Primary dentition
  Cost-effectiveness reported narratively: HT found more cost-effective than NRCC in primary teeth (Santamaria 2018); not GRADE-rated.
  1 study
  GRADE not reported

Chemotherapy regimen A (+/- locoregional treatment) vs Chemotherapy regimen B (+/- locoregional treatment)

• Interventions for the treatment of oral cavity and oropharyngeal cancer: chemotherapy 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes
  Locoregional control reported in 12 studies; not pooled. Olasz 2000 RR 0.50 (0.26 to 0.96); Prevost 2005 RR 1.48 (1.04 to 2.11); Molinari 1982 RR 0.35 (0.19 to 0.66).
  12 studies
  GRADE not reported

Rubber dam isolation and moisture control (alone or with saliva aspiration) vs Cotton rolls (with or without saliva aspiration)

• Rubber dam isolation for restorative treatment in dental patients 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes

  6, 12, 18 months · Non-carious cervical lesions (composite restoration)
  Loguercio 2015: no significant differences (P>0.05) in marginal staining and marginal adaptation of NCCL restorations between rubber dam and cotton rolls/retraction cords at 6, 12 and 18 months.
  1 study · 30 participants
  GRADE not reported