What do systematic reviews say?

Single full-coverage metal-ceramic crown over composite core and post vs Direct adhesive composite restoration with post (conventional filling, no crown)

It is very uncertain whether single full-coverage metal-ceramic crown over composite core and post changes non-catastrophic failure of the restoration (requiring further… compared with direct adhesive composite restoration with post (conventional… (very low certainty).

• Single crowns versus conventional fillings for the restoration of root‐filled teeth 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes

  3 years
  RR 0.33 [0.04, 3.05]
  1 study · 117 participants
  Very low

Barrier techniques (gloves/plasters) vs No treatment

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Interventions for the cessation of non‐nutritive sucking habits in children 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes
  There were no studies that looked at barrier techniques or pacifier withdrawal.
  0 studies
  No studies found

Sedation (sedative agents administered via any route) vs General anaesthesia

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Sedation versus general anaesthesia for provision of dental treatment to patients younger than 18 years 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes
  no estimate extracted
  0 studies
  No studies found

Hall technique vs Non-restorative caries treatment

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Preformed crowns for decayed primary molar teeth 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes
  Satisfaction with treatment: No evidence available (Summary of findings 2).
  0 studies
  No studies found

Xylitol lozenges (4.7 g/day) vs no treatment

Xylitol lozenges (4.7 g/day) showed no clear difference in number of children with a caries increment compared with no treatment; GRADE not reported.

• Xylitol‐containing products for preventing dental caries in children and adults 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes

  24 months (48-month follow-up)
  RR 1.02 [0.83, 1.26]
  1 study · 200 participants
  GRADE not reported

Endodontic therapy performed with one type of magnification device (surgical microscope, endoscope or magnifying loupes) vs Endodontic therapy performed with a different type of magnification device

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Magnification devices for endodontic therapy 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes
  No included study assessed this outcome; the review notes that such secondary outcomes were only sporadically reported and were never statistically assessed.
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

Endodontic therapy performed with one type of magnification device (surgical microscope, endoscope or magnifying loupes) vs Endodontic therapy performed with a different type of magnification device

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Magnification devices for endodontic therapy 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes
  No included study assessed this outcome; the review notes that such secondary outcomes were only sporadically reported and were never statistically assessed.
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

Micro-invasive treatment (proximal sealing or resin infiltration) vs Conventional invasive treatment (restoration / drill and fill)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Micro‐invasive interventions for managing proximal dental decay in primary and permanent teeth 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes
  No studies compared micro-invasive treatments with invasive treatment (fillings)
  0 studies
  No studies found

Chlorhexidine gel (0.12%) vs no treatment

It is very uncertain whether chlorhexidine gel (0.12%) changes presence of new caries in the primary teeth compared with no treatment (very low certainty).

• Chlorhexidine treatment for the prevention of dental caries in children and adolescents 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes

  24 months · primary dentition
  RR 1.00 [0.36, 2.77]
  2 studies · 487 participants
  Very low

Preformed metal crown (fitted using the Hall Technique) vs Preformed metal crown (fitted using a conventional technique)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Preformed crowns for decayed primary molar teeth 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes
  None of the included studies compared the effectiveness or safety of the Hall Technique versus the conventional technique of fitting a crown. No RCT evidence found.
  0 studies
  No studies found

Any intervention for KCOT (e.g. enucleation), alone or combined with an adjunctive therapy (ostectomy, cryotherapy, or Carnoy's solution) vs A different intervention (e.g. enucleation versus marsupialisation), or the same surgical intervention without the adjunctive therapy

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Interventions for the treatment of keratocystic odontogenic tumours 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes
  No randomised controlled trials that met the inclusion criteria were identified. In view of the fact that no studies were identified, no data were available for analysis.
  0 studies
  No studies found

Chlorhexidine varnish vs placebo or no treatment

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Chlorhexidine treatment for the prevention of dental caries in children and adolescents 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes
  No trials reported on pain, quality of life, patient satisfaction or costs.
  0 studies
  No studies found

Non-specific immunotherapy (recombinant interleukin-2 or BCG cell wall preparation) plus standard therapy vs Standard therapy alone (radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy)

• Interventions for the treatment of oral and oropharyngeal cancers: targeted therapy and immunotherapy 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes

  24 to 70 months · Recombinant interleukin-2 + neoadjuvant chemotherapy (Mantovani 1998), tumour response
  Response to treatment (Mantovani 1998; neoadjuvant chemotherapy + rIL-2 vs chemotherapy alone): complete response 4/13 vs 3/15; partial response 6/13 vs 9/15. Narrative only; no GRADE rating.
  1 study · 33 participants
  GRADE not reported

Oral cryotherapy (ice chips, ice-cold water, ice cubes or crushed ice held in the mouth during cancer treatment) vs no intervention or control intervention (control)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Interventions for preventing oral mucositis in patients with cancer receiving treatment: oral cryotherapy 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes

  Fluorouracil (5FU) treatment for solid cancers
  No studies reported the number of days unable to take medicine orally (whole review).
  0 studies
  No studies found

Fluoride gel (topically applied; operator- or self-applied; any fluoride agent/concentration; frequency at least once a year) vs placebo or no treatment

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Fluoride gels for preventing dental caries in children and adolescents 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes

  Nearest to 3 years
  There were no data on d(m)ft available.
  0 studies
  No studies found

Pilocarpine vs Artificial saliva

• Parasympathomimetic drugs for the treatment of salivary gland dysfunction due to radiotherapy 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes
  Davies 1994 (cross-over, 20 participants): mean improvement in VAS score 22.5 mm with pilocarpine vs 15.2 mm with artificial saliva (100 mm scale). The improvement was greater with pilocarpine but was not statistically…
  1 study · 20 participants
  GRADE not reported

Resin infiltration vs Non-invasive measures (fluoride varnish/toothpaste, flossing, oral hygiene instruction, sham/standard of care)

Resin infiltration led to lower caries (lesion) progression (radiographic) compared with fluoride varnish, sham/placebo, or flossing advice (non-invasive…; GRADE not reported.

• Micro‐invasive interventions for managing proximal dental decay in primary and permanent teeth 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes

  12 to 36 months (radiographic follow-up) · Resin infiltration
  OR 0.19 [0.08, 0.46]
  2 studies
  GRADE not reported

Cessation of water fluoridation (fluoride removed from the water supply) vs Continued fluoridated water

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Water fluoridation for the prevention of dental caries 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes
  No evidence to determine the effect of the cessation of water fluoridation on disparities in caries across SES.
  0 studies
  No studies found

Fluoridated milk vs Non-fluoridated milk

Fluoridated milk may leads to lower caries in primary teeth: dmft (3 years) compared with non-fluoridated milk (low certainty).

• Fluoridated milk for preventing dental caries 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes

  3 years
  MD -1.14 [-1.86, -0.42]
  1 study · 166 participants
  Low

Hall technique vs Non-restorative caries treatment

It is very uncertain whether preformed metal crown (fitted using the Hall Technique) changes adverse events: gingival bleeding compared with non-restorative caries treatment (very low certainty).

• Preformed crowns for decayed primary molar teeth 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes

  Long term (12 months)
  RR 1.09 [0.42, 2.86]
  1 study · 92 participants
  Very low