evidencegaps
Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

1,127 questions · 1,590 findings · 132 reviews · Oral Health

Sort:Best matchNewestHighest certaintyDownload CSV
No studies found 189 · 11.9%GRADE not reported 1,166 · 73.3%Very low 130 · 8.2%Low 69 · 4.3%Moderate 25 · 1.6%High 11 · 0.7%

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

Salivary function impairment (buffering capacity, flow rate, oral pH) · Adults with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) or laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR)

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

1 finding from 1 review
  • 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)

Diagnostic odds ratio (DOR) by subgroup: Low dentine-caries prevalence (<=14%) (detection of early enamel caries, D1 threshold) · Asymptomatic children, adolescents, or adults presenting for clinical examination (in vivo studies), or extracted teeth of children or…
1 finding from 1 review

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

Cost‐effectiveness · Children aged 6 years and older (healthy except for dental caries)

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).

1 finding from 1 review

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

Lower incisor inclination (lingual tipping and retrusion) · Children (approximately 11 years or older) with compromised mandibular first permanent molars

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

1 finding from 1 review

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

Oral health-related quality of life · Completely edentulous people

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).

1 finding from 1 review

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

Adverse effects: paraesthesia following injection · Participants of any age and gender undergoing dental procedures, and volunteers who took part in simulated scenario studies in which…

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review
  • 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

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

Adverse effects: pain following injection · Participants of any age and gender undergoing dental procedures, and volunteers who took part in simulated scenario studies in which…

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).

1 finding from 1 review