Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

550 questions · 669 findings · 42 reviews

No studies found 162 · 24.2%GRADE not reported 272 · 40.7%Very low 110 · 16.4%Low 93 · 13.9%Moderate 29 · 4.3%High 3 · 0.4%

Glass ionomer-based sealant vs No sealant (control/no treatment)

Dentine caries in permanent molars (24 months) · Children and adolescents (general population, aged under 20 years)
1 finding from 1 review
  • Inconclusive results: two studies slightly favoured glass ionomers (Liu 2014b OR 0.46 (0.23-0.91); Tagliaferro 2011) evaluating 426 children; one study (Songpaisan 1995) found no difference (MD DFS -0.18 (-0.39 to…
    3 studies · 830 participants
    Very low

Resin-based fissure sealant (2nd/3rd/4th generation) vs No sealant (control/no treatment)

Dentine caries in permanent molars (24 months) · Children and adolescents (general population, aged under 20 years)

Resin-based fissure sealant (2nd/3rd/4th generation) probably leads to lower dentine caries in permanent molars (24 months) compared with no sealant (control/no treatment) (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Glass ionomer-based sealant vs Resin-based sealant

Dentine caries in permanent molars (24 months) · Children and adolescents (general population, aged under 20 years)
1 finding from 1 review

Autopolymerised sealant vs Light polymerised sealant

Retention of sealant (complete or partial retention) · Children with sound primary molars, aged 2-4 years (municipal dental clinics or hospital paediatric clinics, Denmark)

It is very uncertain whether autopolymerised sealant changes retention of sealant (complete or partial retention) compared with light polymerised sealant (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Glass ionomer-based sealant vs Resin-based sealant

Adverse events · 'Healthy' children with caries-free second primary molars, aged 3-5 years (schools and kindergartens, India and China)
1 finding from 1 review
  • 1 study reported adverse events as some discomfort such as nausea; 1 child experienced a strong gag reflex following the glass ionomer-based sealant while 8 children reported feeling uncomfortable after the fluoride…
    1 study · 100 participants
    Very low

Rubber/elastomeric cleaning stick plus toothbrushing vs Interdental brushing plus toothbrushing

Plaque · Adults, 16 years and older (dentate)

It is very uncertain whether rubber/elastomeric cleaning stick plus toothbrushing changes plaque compared with interdental brushing plus toothbrushing (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Rubber/elastomeric cleaning stick plus toothbrushing vs Interdental brushing plus toothbrushing

Gingivitis · Adults, 16 years and older (dentate)

It is very uncertain whether rubber/elastomeric cleaning stick plus toothbrushing changes gingivitis (proportion of bleeding sites) compared with interdental brushing plus toothbrushing (very low certainty).

2 findings from 1 review

Rubber/elastomeric cleaning stick plus toothbrushing vs Interdental brushing plus toothbrushing

Side effects · Adults, 16 years and older (dentate)
1 finding from 1 review

Rubber/elastomeric cleaning stick plus toothbrushing vs Interdental brushing plus toothbrushing

Periodontitis (probing pocket depth) · Adults, 16 years and older (dentate)
1 finding from 1 review

High-viscosity glass-ionomer ART restorations vs Conventional treatment using RM-GIC

Restoration failure (permanent, mature teeth) · Adults with root caries in permanent (mature) teeth

ART using H-GIC showed no clear difference in restoration failure (permanent, mature teeth) compared with conventional treatment using RM-GIC (with local anaesthetic); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

ART using resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RM-GIC) vs Conventional treatment using RM-GIC

Restoration failure (primary dentition) · Older adults with root caries in permanent (mature) teeth (mean age 75 years)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

ART using resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RM-GIC) vs Conventional treatment using RM-GIC

Restoration failure (permanent, mature dentition; root surfaces) · Older adults with root caries in permanent (mature) teeth (mean age 75 years)

It is very uncertain whether ART using resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RM-GIC) changes restoration failure (permanent, mature dentition; root surfaces) compared with conventional treatment using RM-GIC (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Chlorhexidine gel (0.12%) vs no treatment

Mutans streptococci prevalence (presence/absence) · Children and adolescents below 18 years at study start (included studies: children from birth to 15 years), with mixed, permanent or…

It is very uncertain whether chlorhexidine gel (0.12%) changes mutans streptococci prevalence (presence/absence) compared with no treatment (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review