evidencegaps
Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

602 questions · 963 findings · 90 reviews

Sort:Best matchNewestHighest certaintyDownload CSV
No studies found 118 · 12.3%GRADE not reported 578 · 60%Very low 93 · 9.7%Low 92 · 9.6%Moderate 59 · 6.1%High 23 · 2.4%

Fluoride supplementation (tablets, drops, lozenges or chewing gum) vs Topical fluoride (fluoride rinse, varnish or toothpaste)

Caries increment in permanent teeth · Children and adolescents aged 16 years or less
2 findings from 1 review

Fluoride supplementation (tablets, drops, lozenges or chewing gum) vs No fluoride supplement (placebo or no treatment)

Caries increment in permanent teeth · Children and adolescents aged 16 years or less
2 findings from 1 review

Compomer (Dyract) vs Amalgam (Tytin)

Surface texture failures at 24 months · Children aged 12 years or younger with tooth decay involving at least one tooth in the primary dentition, symptomatic or symptom free

Compomer (Dyract) showed no clear difference in surface texture failures at 24 months compared with amalgam (Tytin); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Resin-modified glass ionomer (Vitremer) vs Amalgam restoration

Marginal integrity, wear, surface texture, staining and secondary caries (Ryge criteria) at 6-12 months · Children aged 12 years or younger with tooth decay involving at least one tooth in the primary dentition, symptomatic or symptom free
1 finding from 1 review
  • Dental fillings for the treatment of caries in the primary dentition 2009 · Cochrane All outcomes
    6-12 months
    Marginal integrity, wear, surface texture, axial contour, staining and secondary caries (Ryge criteria) at 6 and 12 months: odds ratios not estimable - no events recorded, implying equal performance of the two materials.
    1 study · 60 participants
    GRADE not reported

Topical fluoride therapy (toothpaste, mouthrinse, gel or varnish; any fluoride agent/concentration; frequency at least once a year) vs placebo or no treatment

Caries increment on permanent tooth surfaces (D(M)FS), prevented fraction · Children and adolescents aged 16 years or younger (permanent dentition)
7 findings from 1 review
Show 4 more findings

Topical fluoride therapy (toothpaste, mouthrinse, gel or varnish; any fluoride agent/concentration; frequency at least once a year) vs placebo or no treatment

Caries increment on primary (deciduous) tooth surfaces (d(e/m)fs), prevented fraction · Children with primary (deciduous) teeth (younger children)
5 findings from 1 review
Show 2 more findings

Conventional bitewing radiography, F-speed film vs Histological validation of dental tissues (gold standard)

Diagnostic accuracy for proximal caries detection (caries detection level) · Extracted permanent posterior teeth with proximal surfaces (in vitro)

Under in vitro conditions, conventional F-speed bitewing radiography had a summary ROC AUC of 0.72 for proximal caries detection at the caries detection level; ungraded.

4 findings from 1 review
Show 1 more finding

Laser fluorescence (DIAGNOdent 2190/pen) vs Histological validation of dental tissues (gold standard)

Diagnostic accuracy for proximal caries detection (dentin detection level) · Extracted permanent posterior teeth with proximal surfaces (in vitro)

Under in vitro conditions, laser fluorescence (DIAGNOdent 2190) had a summary ROC AUC of 0.83 for proximal caries detection at the dentin detection level; ungraded.

4 findings from 1 review
Show 1 more finding

Conventional bitewing radiography (E-speed film) vs Histological validation of dental tissues (gold standard)

Diagnostic accuracy for proximal caries detection (caries detection level) · Extracted permanent posterior teeth with proximal surfaces (in vitro)

Under in vitro conditions, conventional E-speed bitewing radiography had a pooled sensitivity of 0.42 (95% CI 0.28, 0.57) for proximal caries detection at the caries detection level; ungraded.

4 findings from 1 review
Show 1 more finding

Laser fluorescence (DIAGNOdent 2095) vs Histological validation (serial sectioning, grinding, hemisection, or microradiography)

Diagnostic accuracy for occlusal caries detection at the caries detection level (D0 versus D1-D4) · Extracted human permanent posterior teeth (premolars and molars), occlusal (pit-and-fissure) surfaces

In in vitro, laser fluorescence (DIAGNOdent 2095) pooled summary ROC AUC was 0.81 for occlusal caries at the caries detection level; ungraded.

4 findings from 1 review
Show 1 more finding

Conventional bitewing radiography (E-speed film) vs Histological validation of dental tissues (gold standard)

Diagnostic accuracy for proximal caries detection (dentin detection level) · Extracted permanent posterior teeth with proximal surfaces (in vitro)

Under in vitro conditions, conventional E-speed bitewing radiography had a pooled diagnostic odds ratio of 31.40 (95% CI 14.31, 68.93) for proximal caries detection at the dentin detection level; ungraded.

4 findings from 1 review
Show 1 more finding

Digital bitewing radiography, phosphor plate (PSP) vs Direct visual examination after tooth separation or bioptical cavity preparation

Diagnostic accuracy for proximal caries detection (dentin detection level) · Patients with permanent posterior teeth, proximal surfaces assessed clinically (in vivo)

Under in vivo conditions, phosphor-plate digital bitewing radiography had a pooled specificity of 0.60 (95% CI 0.20, 0.90) for proximal caries detection at the dentin detection level; ungraded.

4 findings from 1 review
Show 1 more finding

Laser fluorescence (DIAGNOdent 2190/pen) vs Direct visual examination after tooth separation or bioptical cavity preparation

Diagnostic accuracy for proximal caries detection (dentin detection level) · Patients with permanent posterior teeth, proximal surfaces assessed clinically (in vivo)

Under in vivo conditions, laser fluorescence (DIAGNOdent 2190) had a pooled specificity of 0.60 (95% CI 0.15, 0.93) for proximal caries detection at the dentin detection level; ungraded.

4 findings from 1 review
Show 1 more finding

Conventional bitewing radiography, F-speed film vs Histological validation of dental tissues (gold standard)

Diagnostic accuracy for proximal caries detection (dentin detection level) · Extracted permanent posterior teeth with proximal surfaces (in vitro)

Under in vitro conditions, conventional F-speed bitewing radiography had a pooled diagnostic odds ratio of 8.7 (95% CI 4.2, 18.1) for proximal caries detection at the dentin detection level; ungraded.

4 findings from 1 review
Show 1 more finding

Conventional bitewing radiography (D-speed film) vs Histological validation of dental tissues (gold standard)

Diagnostic accuracy for proximal caries detection (dentin detection level) · Extracted permanent posterior teeth with proximal surfaces (in vitro)

Under in vitro conditions, conventional D-speed bitewing radiography had a pooled specificity of 0.99 (95% CI 0.96, 0.999) for proximal caries detection at the dentin detection level; ungraded.

4 findings from 1 review
Show 1 more finding

Digital bitewing radiography, sensor-based (CCD/CMOS) vs Histological validation of dental tissues (gold standard)

Diagnostic accuracy for proximal caries detection (caries detection level) · Extracted permanent posterior teeth with proximal surfaces (in vitro)

Under in vitro conditions, sensor-based digital bitewing radiography had a pooled diagnostic odds ratio of 5.01 (95% CI 2.83, 8.88) for proximal caries detection at the caries detection level; ungraded.

4 findings from 1 review
Show 1 more finding

Visual examination (VE) vs Cavity preparation or biopsy (operative validation)

Diagnostic accuracy for occlusal caries detection at the caries detection level (D0 versus D1-D4) · Human permanent posterior teeth (premolars and molars) in patients, occlusal (pit-and-fissure) surfaces

In in vivo, visual examination pooled summary ROC AUC was 0.70 for occlusal caries at the caries detection level; ungraded.

4 findings from 1 review
Show 1 more finding