Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

516 questions · 950 findings · 74 reviews · Dental caries

No studies found 35 · 3.7%GRADE not reported 831 · 87.5%Very low 38 · 4%Low 26 · 2.7%Moderate 13 · 1.4%High 7 · 0.7%

COE with blood/salivary (biomarker) analysis 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)

Outcome not reported · Apparently healthy adults not reporting symptoms of OPMD or OSCC, attending an organised screening or surveillance programme, or screened…

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Remote screening of the oral cavity (mobile application/telemedicine) 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)

Specificity for detection of oral cavity cancer/OPMD · Apparently healthy adults not reporting symptoms of OPMD or OSCC, attending an organised screening or surveillance programme, or screened…
1 finding from 1 review

Remote screening of the oral cavity (mobile application/telemedicine) 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)

Sensitivity for detection of oral cavity cancer/OPMD · Apparently healthy adults not reporting symptoms of OPMD or OSCC, attending an organised screening or surveillance programme, or screened…
1 finding from 1 review

Higher consumption of snacks / sugar / soft drinks vs Lower consumption

Dental caries · Healthy children and adolescents in the United Arab Emirates

Higher snacking and soft-drink/sugar consumption were associated with more caries in most studies, though one study found no association with sweet-consumption frequency (narrative synthesis; not GRADE-rated).

1 finding from 1 review

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

Outcome not reported · Apparently healthy adults not reporting symptoms of OPMD or OSCC, attending an organised screening or surveillance programme, or screened…

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

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)

Outcome not reported · Apparently healthy adults not reporting symptoms of OPMD or OSCC, attending an organised screening or surveillance programme, or screened…

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

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)

Specificity for detection of oral cavity cancer/OPMD · Apparently healthy adults not reporting symptoms of OPMD or OSCC, attending an organised screening or surveillance programme, or screened…
1 finding from 1 review

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)

Specificity for detection of oral cavity cancer/OPMD · Apparently healthy adults not reporting symptoms of OPMD or OSCC, attending an organised screening or surveillance programme, or screened…
1 finding from 1 review

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)

Outcome not reported · Samples with a low (<15%) prevalence of caries into dentine (d3/D3); target condition = non-cavitated enamel caries.

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review
  • 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. 'No studies reported the inclusion of a low prevalence (0% to 14%) of d3/D3 of tooth surfaces'; all included studies reported d3/D3 prevalence of 15% or above, so the planned low-prevalence…
    0 studies
    No studies found

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)

Sensitivity for detection of oral cavity cancer/OPMD · Apparently healthy adults not reporting symptoms of OPMD or OSCC, attending an organised screening or surveillance programme, or screened…
1 finding from 1 review

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)

Sensitivity for detection of oral cavity cancer/OPMD · Apparently healthy adults not reporting symptoms of OPMD or OSCC, attending an organised screening or surveillance programme, or screened…
1 finding from 1 review

AG genotype of ENAM rs1264848 vs AA genotype of ENAM rs1264848

Dental caries susceptibility · Individuals assessed for dental caries (cases with caries/high caries vs. caries-free or low/very-low-caries controls)

No significant association between AG genotype vs AA genotype of ENAM rs1264848 and dental caries susceptibility (AG vs AA model: OR 1.21, 95% CI 0.88-1.65); certainty not graded.

6 findings from 1 review
Show 3 more findings

TT genotype of AMELX rs6639060 vs CC genotype of AMELX rs6639060

Dental caries susceptibility · Individuals assessed for dental caries (cases with caries/high caries vs. caries-free or low/very-low-caries controls)

No significant association between TT genotype vs CC genotype of AMELX rs6639060 and dental caries susceptibility (TT vs CC model: OR 1.04, 95% CI 0.43-2.51) in the Age group: Adults subgroup; certainty not graded.

3 findings from 1 review

CT genotype of AMELX rs946252 vs CC genotype of AMELX rs946252

Dental caries susceptibility · Individuals assessed for dental caries (cases with caries/high caries vs. caries-free or low/very-low-caries controls)

No significant association between CT genotype vs CC genotype of AMELX rs946252 and dental caries susceptibility (CT vs CC model: OR 2.80, 95% CI 0.93-8.43) in the Ethnicity: Caucasian subgroup; certainty not graded.

6 findings from 1 review
Show 3 more findings

GG genotype of LTF rs1126478 vs AA + AG genotype of LTF rs1126478

Dental caries susceptibility · Individuals assessed for dental caries (cases with caries/high caries vs. caries-free or low/very-low-caries controls)

No significant association between GG genotype vs AA + AG genotype of LTF rs1126478 and dental caries susceptibility (GG vs AA + AG model: OR 0.95, 95% CI 0.80-1.13) in the Age group: Children subgroup; certainty not graded.

5 findings from 1 review
Show 2 more findings

CT genotype of AMELX rs17878486 vs CC genotype of AMELX rs17878486

Dental caries susceptibility · Individuals assessed for dental caries (cases with caries/high caries vs. caries-free or low/very-low-caries controls)

The CT genotype of AMELX rs17878486 was associated with increased dental caries risk (CT vs CC model: OR 5.11, 95% CI 1.33-19.72) in the Ethnicity: Mixed subgroup; certainty not graded.

9 findings from 1 review
Show 6 more findings