evidencegaps
Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

122 questions · 149 findings · 29 reviews · Oral Health

Sort:Best matchNewestHighest certaintyDownload CSV
No studies found 21 · 14.1%GRADE not reported 88 · 59.1%Very low 11 · 7.4%Low 27 · 18.1%Moderate 2 · 1.3%High 0 · 0%

Maxillary sinus lift (augmentation) with long implants vs Short implants (5 to 8.5 mm) without sinus augmentation

Augmentation procedure failure · Patients with missing teeth and an atrophic posterior maxilla, with residual bone height between 4 and 9 mm below the maxillary sinus
1 finding from 1 review

Maxillary sinus lift (augmentation) with long implants vs Short implants (5 to 8.5 mm) without sinus augmentation

Implant failure · Patients with missing teeth and an atrophic posterior maxilla, with residual bone height between 4 and 9 mm below the maxillary sinus

Maxillary sinus lift (augmentation) with long implants showed no clear difference in implant failure compared with short implants (5 to 8.5 mm) without sinus augmentation (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Maxillary sinus lift (augmentation) with long implants vs Short implants (5 to 8.5 mm) without sinus augmentation

Prosthesis failure · Patients with missing teeth and an atrophic posterior maxilla, with residual bone height between 4 and 9 mm below the maxillary sinus

Maxillary sinus lift (augmentation) with long implants showed no clear difference in prosthesis failure compared with short implants (5 to 8.5 mm) without sinus augmentation (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Longitudinal follow-up over time (natural caries progression; no assigned intervention) vs Within-cohort change from baseline to follow-up (>=3 y)

Annual decline in percentage of caries-free participants (permanent dentition, D3) · Children and adolescents (permanent dentition, D3, up to 21 y), Western or comparable populations

For low baseline caries experience, the annual decline in caries-free participants ranged 4.3% to 10.2% (9 studies; ungraded).

4 findings from 1 review
  • Caries Progression Rates Revisited: A Systematic Review. 2019 All outcomes
    Annual (studies with >=3 y follow-up) · Western Europe, North America, Australia, New Zealand (or comparable Western populations) · Baseline caries experience: low
    4.3% to 10.2%
    9 studies · 4811 participants
    GRADE not reported
  • Caries Progression Rates Revisited: A Systematic Review. 2019 All outcomes
    Annual (studies with >=3 y follow-up) · Western Europe, North America, Australia, New Zealand (or comparable Western populations)
    0.8% to 10.2%
    18 studies · 12017 participants
    GRADE not reported
  • Caries Progression Rates Revisited: A Systematic Review. 2019 All outcomes
    Annual (studies with >=3 y follow-up) · Western Europe, North America, Australia, New Zealand (or comparable Western populations) · Baseline caries experience: high
    0.8% to 2.2%
    2 studies · 5029 participants
    GRADE not reported
Show 1 more finding
  • Caries Progression Rates Revisited: A Systematic Review. 2019 All outcomes
    Annual (studies with >=3 y follow-up) · Western Europe, North America, Australia, New Zealand (or comparable Western populations) · Baseline caries experience: moderate
    3.7% to 8.3%
    4 studies · 928 participants
    GRADE not reported

Longitudinal follow-up over time (natural caries progression; no assigned intervention) vs Within-cohort change from baseline to follow-up (>=3 y)

Annual increment in DMFT (permanent dentition) · Children and adolescents (permanent dentition, D3, up to 21 y), Western or comparable populations

In the permanent dentition, the annual DMFT increment ranged from 0.06 to 0.73 across 14 studies, and was higher where baseline caries experience was higher (descriptive range; ungraded).

4 findings from 1 review
Show 1 more finding
  • Caries Progression Rates Revisited: A Systematic Review. 2019 All outcomes
    Per year of follow-up · Western Europe, North America, Australia, New Zealand (or comparable Western populations) · Baseline caries experience: moderate
    0.24 to 0.73
    6 studies · 16705 participants
    GRADE not reported

Longitudinal follow-up over time (natural caries progression; no assigned intervention) vs Within-cohort change from baseline to follow-up (>=3 y)

Caries development in permanent teeth · Children and adolescents (permanent dentition, D3, up to 21 y), Western or comparable populations

In the permanent dentition, the annual DMFS increment ranged from 0.07 to 1.77 across 26 studies, and was higher where baseline caries experience was higher (descriptive range; ungraded).

4 findings from 1 review
Show 1 more finding
  • Caries Progression Rates Revisited: A Systematic Review. 2019 All outcomes
    Per year of follow-up · Western Europe, North America, Australia, New Zealand (or comparable Western populations) · Baseline caries experience: low
    0.07 to 0.53
    8 studies · 3735 participants
    GRADE not reported

Longitudinal follow-up over time (natural caries progression; no assigned intervention) vs Within-cohort change from baseline to follow-up (>=3 y)

Dental caries: dmfs increment (primary teeth) · Children (primary dentition, d3), Western or comparable populations

In the primary dentition, the annual dmfs increment ranged from -1.0 to 1.0 across 7 studies; values were inconsistent because of tooth exfoliation and could not be pooled (ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Longitudinal follow-up over time (natural caries progression; no assigned intervention) vs Within-cohort change from baseline to follow-up (>=3 y)

Annual decline in percentage of caries-free children (primary dentition, d3) · Children (primary dentition, d3), Western or comparable populations

In the primary dentition, the annual decline in the percentage of caries-free children ranged from 3.8% to 12.2% across 6 studies (descriptive range, no pooled estimate; ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Longitudinal follow-up over time (natural caries progression; no assigned intervention) vs Within-cohort change from baseline to follow-up (>=3 y)

Caries incidence rate (first D3 lesion) per person-year at risk (permanent dentition) · Children and adolescents (permanent dentition, D3, up to 21 y), Western or comparable populations

In the permanent dentition, the pooled caries incidence rate was 0.11 per person-year at risk (95% CI 0.09 to 0.13; random-effects meta-analysis of 15 studies), i.e., about 11 of every 100 caries-free persons develop dentine caries each year (ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review
  • Caries Progression Rates Revisited: A Systematic Review. 2019 All outcomes
    Per person-year at risk · Western Europe, North America, Australia, New Zealand (or comparable Western populations)
    Incidence rate (per person-year at risk) 0.11 [0.09, 0.13]
    15 studies · 10768 participants
    GRADE not reported

Longitudinal follow-up over time (natural caries progression; no assigned intervention) vs Within-cohort change from baseline to follow-up (>=3 y)

Annual increment in dmft (primary dentition) · Children (primary dentition, d3), Western or comparable populations

In the primary dentition, the annual dmft increment ranged from -0.3 to 0.3 across 4 studies; values were inconsistent because of tooth exfoliation and could not be pooled (ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Inlay/interposed bone graft (iliac or Bio-Oss block) + longer implants (vertical augmentation) vs Short implants (8 to 11 mm) without augmentation

Severe pain for > 1 week · Patients with atrophic (resorbed) mandibles needing implants

Inlay/interposed bone graft (iliac or Bio-Oss block) + longer… led to higher severe pain for > 1 week compared with short implants (8 to 11 mm) without augmentation; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Inlay/interposed bone graft (iliac or Bio-Oss block) + longer implants (vertical augmentation) vs Short implants (8 to 11 mm) without augmentation

Experienced the operation negatively · Patients with atrophic (resorbed) mandibles needing implants

Inlay/interposed bone graft (iliac or Bio-Oss block) + longer… showed no clear difference in experienced the operation negatively compared with short implants (8 to 11 mm) without augmentation; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Inlay/interposed bone graft (iliac or Bio-Oss block) + longer implants (vertical augmentation) vs Short implants (8 to 11 mm) without augmentation

No improvement of facial appearance (3 weeks) · Patients with atrophic (resorbed) mandibles needing implants

Inlay/interposed bone graft (iliac or Bio-Oss block) + longer… led to lower no improvement of facial appearance (3 weeks) compared with short implants (8 to 11 mm) without augmentation; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Inlay/interposed bone graft (iliac or Bio-Oss block) + longer implants (vertical augmentation) vs Short implants (8 to 11 mm) without augmentation

Prosthetic failure (2 years) · Patients with atrophic (resorbed) mandibles needing implants

Inlay/interposed bone graft (iliac or Bio-Oss block) + longer… showed no clear difference in prosthetic failure compared with short implants (8 to 11 mm) without augmentation; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Inlay/interposed bone graft (iliac or Bio-Oss block) + longer implants (vertical augmentation) vs Short implants (8 to 11 mm) without augmentation

Major complications · Patients with atrophic (resorbed) mandibles needing implants

Inlay/interposed bone graft (iliac or Bio-Oss block) + longer… led to higher major complications compared with short implants (8 to 11 mm) without augmentation; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Inlay/interposed bone graft (iliac or Bio-Oss block) + longer implants (vertical augmentation) vs Short implants (8 to 11 mm) without augmentation

Implant failure · Patients with atrophic (resorbed) mandibles needing implants

Inlay/interposed bone graft (iliac or Bio-Oss block) + longer… showed no clear difference in implant failure compared with short implants (8 to 11 mm) without augmentation; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Dental cavity liner (e.g. calcium hydroxide, glass ionomer, resin-modified glass ionomer, or flowable composite) placed under the restoration vs No cavity liner or a different liner material

Restoration longevity · Patients with deep caries lesions in mature or immature permanent (posterior) teeth, with no symptoms or reversible pulpitis

Cavity liners may make little or no difference to restoration longevity (high success across groups; low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Gamified oral health interventions (mobile apps, serious games, augmented reality, game-based education) vs Non-digital gamified oral health interventions (card/board games, storytelling, printed aids)

Long-term behavior change and overall oral health outcomes · Children or adolescents

Digital gamified interventions appear more effective than non-digital alternatives for long-term behavior change and oral health outcomes, but the evidence is narrative and ungraded.

1 finding from 1 review
  • The Application of Gamification in Children's Oral Health Management: Systematic Review. 2025 All outcomes
    Long-term follow-up (sustained behavior change) · Schools, dental clinics, and mobile-app user-testing environments
    Digital-based interventions were more effective in fostering long-term behavior change compared with nondigital alternatives and consistently outperformed nondigital alternatives in improving oral health outcomes;…
    Studies not reported
    GRADE not reported

Single-visit root canal treatment vs Multiple-visit root canal treatment (two or more visits)

Pain at 12 months or more (long-term postobturation pain) · People aged 10 years or above requiring root canal treatment; permanent teeth with completely formed apex and without internal resorption
1 finding from 1 review

Any antimicrobial mouthwash and/or nasal spray (alone or in combination), at any concentration, delivered to the patient or HCW before and/or after an AGP vs No treatment or saline or water

Other adverse events (allergy, irritation/burning of nasal, oral or oropharyngeal mucosa, long-term staining of mucous membranes or teeth, accidental ingestion) · Patients without suspected or confirmed COVID-19 infection undergoing aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs), and the healthcare workers…

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review