What do systematic reviews say?

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

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

• Injectable local anaesthetic agents for dental anaesthesia 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes
  SoF: See comment (orphan study; exact time of follow-up not reported); 86 participants, 172 interventions (1 study). Not pooled/graded.
  1 study · 86 participants
  GRADE not reported