Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

107 questions · 138 findings · 18 reviews · Dental caries

No studies found 23 · 16.7%GRADE not reported 94 · 68.1%Very low 14 · 10.1%Low 6 · 4.3%Moderate 1 · 0.7%High 0 · 0%

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

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

Laser fluorescence (DIAGNOdent 2190/pen) vs Reference standard

More advanced caries lesion detection · Primary teeth with occlusal surfaces

Pooled specificity was reported, but the numerical estimate is not stated in the supplied text or attached figures; I²=31%; no GRADE rating was reported.

2 findings from 1 review

Fluorescence camera (FC) vs Reference standard

More advanced caries lesion detection · Primary teeth with occlusal surfaces

Pooled specificity was reported, but the numerical estimate is not stated in the supplied text or attached figures; I²=80%; no GRADE rating was reported.

2 findings from 1 review

Fluoride varnish vs placebo or no treatment

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

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

1 finding from 1 review

Laser fluorescence (LF; DIAGNOdent) vs Reference standard

More advanced caries lesion detection · Permanent teeth with occlusal surfaces

Pooled specificity was reported, but the numerical estimate is not stated in the supplied text or attached figures; I²=77%; no GRADE rating was reported.

2 findings from 1 review

Laser fluorescence (LF; DIAGNOdent) vs Reference standard

More advanced caries lesion detection · Primary teeth with occlusal surfaces

Pooled sensitivity was reported, but the numerical estimate is not stated in the supplied text or attached figures; I²=23%; no GRADE rating was reported.

2 findings from 1 review

Fluorescence camera (FC) vs Reference standard

More advanced caries lesion detection · Permanent teeth with occlusal surfaces

Pooled specificity was reported, but the numerical estimate is not stated in the supplied text or attached figures; I²=17%; no GRADE rating was reported.

2 findings from 1 review

Fluoride toothpaste vs Non-fluoride (0 ppm F) placebo toothpaste

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

Fluoride toothpaste showed no clear difference in proportion of children developing one or more new caries compared with placebo (non-fluoride) toothpaste; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

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

Proportion developing new caries · Children and adolescents aged 16 years or younger (permanent dentition)

Topical fluoride therapy (toothpaste, mouthrinse, gel or varnish;… led to lower proportion of children developing one or more new caries compared with placebo or no treatment; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Brushed less than once per day vs Brushed once or more per day

Fluorosis (percentage prevalence in permanent teeth) · Children exposed to topical fluoride when under 6 years old; fluorosis assessed in permanent teeth at 6 to 18 years

Brushed less than once per day may leads to lower fluorosis (percentage prevalence in permanent teeth) compared with brushed once or more per day (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Used a pea-sized amount of fluoride toothpaste or less vs Used more than a pea-sized amount

Fluorosis (percentage prevalence in permanent teeth) · Children exposed to topical fluoride when under 6 years old; fluorosis assessed in permanent teeth at 6 to 18 years

It is very uncertain whether used a pea-sized amount of fluoride toothpaste or less changes fluorosis (percentage prevalence in permanent teeth) compared with used more than a pea-sized amount (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Fluoride toothpaste less than 1000 ppm (lower concentration) vs Fluoride toothpaste 1000 ppm or more (higher concentration)

Fluorosis (percentage prevalence in permanent teeth) · Children exposed to topical fluoride when under 6 years old; fluorosis assessed in permanent teeth at 6 to 18 years

It is very uncertain whether fluoride toothpaste less than 1000 ppm (lower concentration) changes fluorosis (percentage prevalence in permanent teeth) compared with fluoride toothpaste 1000 ppm or more (higher concentration) (very low certainty).

2 findings from 1 review

Brushed less than twice per day vs Brushed twice or more per day

Fluorosis (percentage prevalence in permanent teeth) · Children exposed to topical fluoride when under 6 years old; fluorosis assessed in permanent teeth at 6 to 18 years

It is very uncertain whether brushed less than twice per day changes fluorosis (percentage prevalence in permanent teeth) compared with brushed twice or more per day (very low certainty).

2 findings from 1 review

Used less than half of the brush of fluoride toothpaste vs Used half or more of the brush

Fluorosis (percentage prevalence in permanent teeth) · Children exposed to topical fluoride when under 6 years old; fluorosis assessed in permanent teeth at 6 to 18 years

It is very uncertain whether used less than half of the brush of fluoride toothpaste changes fluorosis (percentage prevalence in permanent teeth) compared with used half or more of the brush (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review