What do systematic reviews say?

Gastroesophageal or laryngopharyngeal reflux (GERD/LPR) vs Healthy controls

Reflux is associated with impaired salivary function (notably reduced buffering capacity) as a proposed pathophysiological mechanism, based on several ungraded studies.

• Laryngopharyngeal reflux, gastroesophageal reflux and dental disorders: A systematic review. 2020 All outcomes

  Adult patients in gastroenterology, ENT and dental clinical settings
  Mixed/controversial salivary findings: reduced salivary buffering capacity supported in three studies (Correa, Holbrook, Filipi) with low oral pH and reduced flow as additional factors in GERD patients, but Meurman and Schroeder found no significant salivary abnormalities; no pooled estimate.
  6 studies
  GRADE not reported

All fluorescence-based devices (red, blue, and green fluorescence combined) vs Reference standard (histology, excavation, or enhanced visual examination)

• Fluorescence devices for the detection of dental caries 2020 · Cochrane All outcomes

  Up to 3 months between index test and reference standard (in vivo studies) · Low dentine-caries prevalence (<=14%)
  DOR 11.10 [6.88, 17.91]
  Studies not reported
  GRADE not reported

Oral-health promotion programs (OHPPs): community-based oral-health education/training, supervised toothbrushing with fluoride toothpaste and topical fluoride, dental screening, and dietary advice vs No oral-health promotion program, or a differing (usual-care) action under similar conditions

In children aged 6 years and older, the cost-effectiveness estimate was extremely imprecise and not significant (OR 0.00, 95% CI 0.00 to 48704.6; ungraded).

• Clinical Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Oral-Health Promotion in Dental Caries Prevention among Children:… 2019 All outcomes

  Community settings: home visits, telephone contacts, healthcare centers, and primary schools · Age >= 6 years
  OR 0.00 [0.00, 48704.6]
  2 studies
  GRADE not reported

4% prilocaine plain vs 2% lidocaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Injectable local anaesthetic agents for dental anaesthesia 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes
  SoF: Not measured.
  0 studies
  No studies found

4% articaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine vs 2% mepivacaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Injectable local anaesthetic agents for dental anaesthesia 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes
  SoF: Not measured.
  0 studies
  No studies found

Bilateral extraction of compromised mandibular first permanent molars vs Age- and gender-matched non-extraction controls

Bilateral lower first permanent molar extraction was associated with lingual tipping and retrusion of the lower incisors in one case-control study; ungraded.

• Consequences of early extraction of compromised first permanent molar: a systematic review. 2018 All outcomes

  Private clinics (Brazil)
  Normando and Cavacami: lower incisor lingual tipping (1.NB mean 23.2 vs 28.4 degrees, P = 0.004) and retrusion (P = 0.03) after bilateral lower FPM loss. Table 3: Category III, Class C.
  1 study
  GRADE not reported

4% articaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine vs 2% lidocaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Injectable local anaesthetic agents for dental anaesthesia 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes
  SoF: Not measured.
  0 studies
  No studies found

0.5% bupivacaine, 1:200,000 epinephrine vs 2% lidocaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Injectable local anaesthetic agents for dental anaesthesia 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes
  SoF: Not measured.
  0 studies
  No studies found

4% articaine, 1:200,000 epinephrine vs 0.5% bupivacaine, 1:200,000 epinephrine

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Injectable local anaesthetic agents for dental anaesthesia 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes
  SoF: Not measured.
  0 studies
  No studies found

4% articaine, 1:200,000 epinephrine vs 4% articaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Injectable local anaesthetic agents for dental anaesthesia 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes
  SoF: Not measured.
  0 studies
  No studies found

Alginate (two stage-two step final/wash impression) vs Silicone elastomer (two stage-two step)

Alginate (two stage-two step final/wash impression) may leads to higher participant-reported oral health-related quality of life… compared with silicone elastomer (two stage-two step) (low certainty).

• Final‐impression techniques and materials for making complete and removable partial dentures 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes

  2 weeks
  MD 7.20 [2.71, 11.69]
  1 study · 144 participants
  Low

2% mepivacaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine vs 2% lidocaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Injectable local anaesthetic agents for dental anaesthesia 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes
  SoF: Not measured.
  0 studies
  No studies found

4% articaine, 1:200,000 epinephrine vs 0.5% bupivacaine, 1:200,000 epinephrine

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Injectable local anaesthetic agents for dental anaesthesia 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes
  SoF: Not measured.
  0 studies
  No studies found

4% prilocaine plain vs 2% lidocaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Injectable local anaesthetic agents for dental anaesthesia 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes
  SoF: See comment; 0 participants (0 studies); 1 case of prolonged anaesthesia recorded; no clinical studies met the outcome definition (unable to confirm whether prolonged anaesthesia = paraesthesia).
  0 studies
  No studies found

3% prilocaine, 0.03 IU felypressin vs 2% lidocaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Injectable local anaesthetic agents for dental anaesthesia 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes
  SoF: Not measured.
  0 studies
  No studies found

2% mepivacaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine vs 2% lidocaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Injectable local anaesthetic agents for dental anaesthesia 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes
  SoF: Not measured.
  0 studies
  No studies found

4% articaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine vs 2% mepivacaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Injectable local anaesthetic agents for dental anaesthesia 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes
  SoF: Not measured.
  0 studies
  No studies found

0.5% bupivacaine, 1:200,000 epinephrine vs 2% lidocaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Injectable local anaesthetic agents for dental anaesthesia 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes
  SoF: Not measured.
  0 studies
  No studies found

3% prilocaine, 0.03 IU felypressin vs 2% lidocaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Injectable local anaesthetic agents for dental anaesthesia 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes
  SoF: Not measured.
  0 studies
  No studies found

4% articaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine vs 2% lidocaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine

4% articaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine probably leads to higher adverse effects: pain following injection, Heft-Parker VAS 0-170 mm compared with 2% lidocaine, 1:100,000 epinephrine (moderate certainty).

• Injectable local anaesthetic agents for dental anaesthesia 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes

  Measured at the time anaesthesia wore off
  MD 6.41 [1.01, 11.8]
  3 studies · 156 participants
  Moderate