Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

342 questions · 380 findings · 34 reviews · All outcomes

No studies found 97 · 25.5%GRADE not reported 190 · 50%Very low 67 · 17.6%Low 23 · 6.1%Moderate 3 · 0.8%High 0 · 0%

Primary school-based interventions (one or more of: school health policy, oral health education, healthy school environment, access to oral health services, community involvement) vs usual practice

Dental caries · Primary school children (aged 3-16 years) attending primary school in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs)

Among children aged 6-8 years, DMFT scores were significantly reduced (SMD -0.11); subgroup not separately GRADE-rated.

8 findings from 1 review
Show 5 more findings

Primary school-based interventions (one or more of: school health policy, oral health education, healthy school environment, access to oral health services, community involvement) vs usual practice

Annual increment in DMFS (D3) · Primary school children (aged 3-16 years) attending primary school in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs)

Oral-health-education interventions significantly reduced net increment in DMFS (SMD -1.05); no significant subgroup difference vs other interventions (P=0.74).

5 findings from 1 review
Show 2 more findings

Primary school-based interventions (one or more of: school health policy, oral health education, healthy school environment, access to oral health services, community involvement) vs usual practice

Dental caries prevalence measured by dmft or DMFT/S score greater than one · Primary school children (aged 3-16 years) attending primary school in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs)

School-based interventions may reduce the prevalence of dental caries (RR 0.70, favouring intervention), but the certainty of evidence is very low.

3 findings from 1 review

Primary school-based interventions (one or more of: school health policy, oral health education, healthy school environment, access to oral health services, community involvement) vs usual practice

Caries increment, tooth index D(M)FT · Primary school children (aged 3-16 years) attending primary school in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs)

Among children aged 5-8 years, net increment in DMFT was not significantly reduced (SMD -0.36); no significant subgroup difference by age.

3 findings from 1 review

High-volume evacuation (HVE) vs No HVE

Reduction in level of contamination in aerosols (CFU) at more than 1 foot from oral cavity (CCT) · People undergoing aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs) in a dental setting

High-volume evacuation (HVE) led to lower reduction in level of contamination in aerosols (CFU) at more than 1… compared with no HVE; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

High-volume evacuation (HVE) vs No HVE

Reduction in level of contamination in aerosols (CFU) during ultrasonic scaling and air polishing at more than 1 foot from oral cavity (RCT) · People undergoing aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs) in a dental setting

It is very uncertain whether high-volume evacuation (HVE) changes reduction in level of contamination in aerosols (CFU) during… compared with no HVE (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

12,500 ppm F (NaF/olaflur/dectaflur) amine fluoride gel vs Placebo gel

Number of participants with more severe DLs (severity of DLs) · Orthodontic patients of any age with fixed braces (new DLs assessed at debond)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Patient-used 5000 ppm F toothpaste, daily vs 1450 to 1500 ppm F toothpaste

Number of participants with more severe DLs (severity of DLs) · Orthodontic patients of any age with fixed braces (new DLs assessed at debond)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

1400/250 ppm F (amine F/SnF2) toothpaste + mouthrinse, daily vs 1400/250 ppm F (NaF) toothpaste + mouthrinse, daily

Number of participants with more severe DLs (severity of DLs) · Orthodontic patients of any age with fixed braces (new DLs assessed at debond)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Slow-release fluoride device (fluoride glass beads) vs Fluoride mouthrinse

Number of participants with more severe DLs (severity of DLs) · Orthodontic patients of any age with fixed braces (new DLs assessed at debond)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Fluoride varnish vs Non-fluoride (placebo) varnish

Number of participants with more severe DLs (score 3 or 4 versus 1 or 2) · Orthodontic patients of any age with fixed braces (new DLs assessed at debond)

Professionally-applied fluoride varnish (7700 ppm F ammonium… may leads to lower number of participants with more severe DLs (score 3 or 4 versus 1… compared with non-fluoride (placebo) varnish (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Resin-modified glass ionomer cement for bonding orthodontic brackets vs Composite resin for bonding brackets

Number of participants with more severe DLs of aesthetic concern · Orthodontic patients of any age with fixed braces (new DLs assessed at debond)

Resin-modified glass ionomer cement for bonding orthodontic brackets showed no clear difference in number of participants with more severe DLs of aesthetic concern compared with light-cured composite resin for bonding brackets (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Patient-used 250 ppm F mouthrinse (100 ppm amine F/150 ppm NaF), daily vs 0 ppm F placebo mouthrinse, daily

Number of participants with more severe DLs (severity of DLs) · Orthodontic patients of any age with fixed braces (new DLs assessed at debond)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Professionally-applied 12,300 ppm F APF foam, every 2 months vs 0 ppm F placebo foam

Number of participants with more severe DLs (severity of DLs) · Orthodontic patients of any age with fixed braces (new DLs assessed at debond)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Keratinocyte growth factor (KGF; palifermin or repifermin), intravenous vs placebo

Interruptions to cancer treatment (unscheduled radiotherapy breaks of 5 or more days) · Adults with cancer receiving treatment

Keratinocyte growth factor (KGF; palifermin or repifermin),… showed no clear difference in interruptions to cancer treatment (unscheduled radiotherapy breaks… compared with placebo; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Fluoride mouthrinse (any fluoride agent, concentration, volume, frequency or technique; swished and expectorated, not swallowed) vs placebo or no treatment

Proportion developing new caries · Children and adolescents aged 16 years or less

Fluoride mouthrinse (any fluoride agent, concentration, volume,… showed no clear difference in proportion of children developing one or more new caries compared with placebo or no treatment; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Laser fluorescence (DIAGNOdent 2190/pen) vs Reference standard

More advanced caries lesion detection · Primary teeth with approximal surfaces

Pooled specificity was reported, but the numerical estimate is not stated in the supplied text or attached figures; I²=89%; no GRADE rating was reported.

2 findings from 1 review

Fluoride varnish vs placebo or no treatment

Proportion of children developing new caries (deciduous) · Children and adolescents aged 16 years or less

Fluoride varnish showed no clear difference in proportion of children developing one or more new caries… compared with placebo or no treatment; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Laser fluorescence (DIAGNOdent 2190/pen) vs Reference standard

More advanced caries lesion detection · Permanent teeth with occlusal surfaces

Pooled sensitivity was reported, but the numerical estimate is not stated in the supplied text or attached figures; I²=73%; no GRADE rating was reported.

2 findings from 1 review

Laser fluorescence (DIAGNOdent 2190/pen) vs Reference standard

More advanced caries lesion detection · Permanent teeth with approximal surfaces

Pooled specificity was reported, but the numerical estimate is not stated in the supplied text or attached figures; I²=84%; no GRADE rating was reported.

2 findings from 1 review