Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

2,227 questions · 2,562 findings · 156 reviews · All outcomes

No studies found 297 · 11.6%GRADE not reported 1,616 · 63.1%Very low 405 · 15.8%Low 144 · 5.6%Moderate 81 · 3.2%High 19 · 0.7%

Teledentistry diagnosis using DSLR or smartphone extra-oral photographs vs Visual or clinical examination

d/D dft/DFT or dmft/DMFT score differences · Children and adults with primary or permanent dentition

Eight studies calculated caries-score differences; six reported no significant difference, one underestimation, and one overestimation with teledentistry.

1 finding from 1 review

Teledentistry diagnosis using DSLR or smartphone extra-oral photographs vs Visual or clinical examination

Specificity for dental caries diagnosis · Children and adults with primary or permanent dentition

Specificity ranged from 83% to 100% across 13 studies; no meta-analysis or GRADE rating was reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Toothbrushing (with or without antiseptics), as part of oral hygiene care vs No toothbrushing (with or without antiseptics)

All‐cause mortality · Critically ill adults receiving mechanical ventilation in ICU

Toothbrushing (with or without antiseptics), as part of oral hygiene… showed no clear difference in mortality compared with no toothbrushing (with or without antiseptics) (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Toothbrushing (with or without antiseptics), as part of oral hygiene care vs No toothbrushing (with or without antiseptics)

Systemic antibiotic use · Critically ill adults receiving mechanical ventilation in ICU

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Toothbrushing (with or without antiseptics), as part of oral hygiene care vs No toothbrushing (with or without antiseptics)

Incidence of VAP · Critically ill adults receiving mechanical ventilation in ICU

Toothbrushing (with or without antiseptics), as part of oral hygiene… may leads to lower incidence of VAP compared with no toothbrushing (with or without antiseptics) (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Toothbrushing (with or without antiseptics), as part of oral hygiene care vs No toothbrushing (with or without antiseptics)

Duration of mechanical ventilation · Critically ill adults receiving mechanical ventilation in ICU

Toothbrushing (with or without antiseptics), as part of oral hygiene… showed no clear difference in duration of mechanical ventilation compared with no toothbrushing (with or without antiseptics) (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Toothbrushing (with or without antiseptics), as part of oral hygiene care vs No toothbrushing (with or without antiseptics)

Adverse effects · Critically ill adults receiving mechanical ventilation in ICU
1 finding from 1 review

Toothbrushing (with or without antiseptics), as part of oral hygiene care vs No toothbrushing (with or without antiseptics)

Duration of ICU stay · Critically ill adults receiving mechanical ventilation in ICU

It is very uncertain whether toothbrushing (with or without antiseptics), as part of oral hygiene… changes duration of ICU stay compared with no toothbrushing (with or without antiseptics) (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Traditional screening with motivation (oral health education and offer of free treatment) vs Traditional screening

Dental attendance · School children, primary and secondary schools in India

It is very uncertain whether traditional screening with motivation (oral health education and… changes dental attendance compared with traditional screening alone (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Non-syndromic cleft lip and palate (CLP) status and its oral microbiota (exposure/grouping) vs Children and adolescents aged 0-18 years without CLP (controls)

Dental caries · Children and adolescents aged 0-18 years with non-syndromic cleft lip and palate (CLP)

Pooling 3 studies, children/adolescents with CLP were about 2.03 times more likely to have dental caries than non-CLP controls (p<0.005; low heterogeneity), though most included studies were at high risk of bias; the evidence is ungraded.

1 finding from 1 review

Non-syndromic cleft lip and palate (CLP) status and its oral microbiota (exposure/grouping) vs Children and adolescents aged 0-18 years without CLP (controls)

Lactobacillus spp. salivary/plaque counts (cariogenic microbiota) · Children and adolescents aged 0-18 years with non-syndromic cleft lip and palate (CLP)

A meta-analysis found no significant difference in mean Lactobacillus spp. levels between children with and without CLP, with high heterogeneity; the evidence is ungraded.

1 finding from 1 review

Non-syndromic cleft lip and palate (CLP) status and its oral microbiota (exposure/grouping) vs Children and adolescents aged 0-18 years without CLP (controls)

Streptococcus mutans count · Children and adolescents aged 0-18 years with non-syndromic cleft lip and palate (CLP)

A meta-analysis of 2 studies found no difference in mean Streptococcus mutans levels between children with and without CLP, with very high heterogeneity; the evidence is ungraded.

1 finding from 1 review

Non-syndromic cleft lip and palate (CLP) status and its oral microbiota (exposure/grouping) vs Children and adolescents aged 0-18 years without CLP (controls)

Periodontal conditions (gingival inflammation, bleeding on probing, probing depth, clinical attachment loss) · Children and adolescents aged 0-18 years with non-syndromic cleft lip and palate (CLP)

Narrative synthesis of 6 studies suggests children/adolescents with CLP have poorer periodontal status (higher gingival and plaque indices, deeper probing, more bleeding and attachment loss) and harbor periodontopathogens; no pooled estimate and the evidence is ungraded.

1 finding from 1 review

Oral health education only (verbal, written, or audio-visual education) delivered by non-dental health workers vs control (no intervention/usual care/isotonic exercise)

Caries experience · Children (mean age newborn to ~5.2 years) and their parents/carers

Oral-health-education-only interventions showed at most a marginal effect on tooth-level caries (dmft SMD -0.11, 95% CI -0.21 to -0.00; 2 studies; not GRADE-rated).

1 finding from 1 review

Oral health education only (verbal, written, or audio-visual education) delivered by non-dental health workers vs control (no intervention/usual care/isotonic exercise)

Caries experience at the surface level (dmfs/defs) · Children (mean age newborn to ~5.2 years) and their parents/carers

Oral-health-education-only interventions did not show a statistically significant effect on surface-level caries (dmfs SMD -0.20, 95% CI -0.43 to 0.03; 2 studies; not GRADE-rated).

1 finding from 1 review

Psychological intervention based on a specified psychological model/theory (to increase adherence to oral hygiene instructions) vs usual care or no treatment

Observed flossing skill · Adults (aged 18 or over) diagnosed with periodontal disease (gingivitis or periodontitis)
1 finding from 1 review

Psychological intervention based on a specified psychological model/theory (to increase adherence to oral hygiene instructions) vs usual care or no treatment

Plaque · Adults (aged 18 or over) diagnosed with periodontal disease (gingivitis or periodontitis)
1 finding from 1 review