evidencegaps
Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

1,966 questions · 3,201 findings · 165 reviews

Sort:Best matchNewestHighest certaintyDownload CSV
No studies found 25 · 0.8%GRADE not reported 2,717 · 84.9%Very low 167 · 5.2%Low 124 · 3.9%Moderate 132 · 4.1%High 36 · 1.1%

Machine-learning algorithms for dental caries detection vs Dental expert / visual-tactile clinical assessment (reference standard)

Positive post-test probability · Dental images or diagnostic tests for dental caries detection

The positive post-test probability was 79%; certainty was not graded.

1 finding from 1 review

Electronic cigarette use vs Non-smokers

IL-8 level · People who use electronic cigarettes

The review reports that GCF evidence was limited and may show a potential association.

3 findings from 1 review

Microinvasive techniques (resin infiltration or glass ionomer varnish) vs Non-invasive measures (fluoride varnish/toothpaste, flossing, oral hygiene instruction, sham/standard of care)

Radiographic proximal caries lesion progression · Children with non-cavitated proximal caries lesions in primary teeth (ages 3-9)

In primary teeth (5 trials), microinvasive techniques reduced radiographic proximal caries progression versus non-invasive measures (OR 0.38; ungraded subgroup).

1 finding from 1 review

Low periodontal-disease prevalence vs Not applicable

Oral health-related quality of life · people aged 60 years and older living in the community

No statistically significant difference in OHRQoL was reported by periodontal-disease prevalence.

1 finding from 1 review

Dental caries vs Caries-free status

Prevalence (detection frequency) of S. mutans in plaque · Systemically healthy individuals (children and adults, aged 40 months to 50 years) assessed for dental caries

S. mutans prevalence in plaque is significantly higher in caries-active than caries-free individuals (pooled OR 2.58, 95% CI 1.65 to 4.02; I2=16%); ungraded.

1 finding from 1 review

Hall technique vs Silver-modified atraumatic restorative treatment (SMART)

Treatment success (caries lesion arrest or restoration survival) · Children (aged 3-11 y) with cavitated caries lesions in primary teeth

At 12 months, the Hall technique had significantly higher treatment success than SMART (OR 4.36; moderate certainty).

2 findings from 1 review

AI systems for caries detection/segmentation on dental X-ray images (predominantly convolutional neural networks; also ANNs, DNNs, DCNN, FCNN, SVMs, decision trees, random forests; e.g. EfficientNet, ResNet, AlexNet) vs Human dentists / trained dental professionals or traditional radiographic interpretation (reference standard / reference models)

Sensitivity · Patients undergoing dental X-ray (radiographic) imaging for caries detection

Pooling 9 studies (17,190 participants), AI sensitivity for caries detection showed no significant association (pooled OR 1.258, 95% CI 0.493-2.540) with high heterogeneity (I2=86%); ungraded.

1 finding from 1 review

Cleft lip and/or palate (CL/P) vs Healthy controls without cleft

Probing pocket depth · Individuals assessed for periodontal health (mainly children and adolescents, age >2 years)

Persons with orofacial cleft have a greater probing pocket depth than healthy controls (MD 0.88, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.95; low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Hydroxyapatite (e.g., nano-HAp) vs Calcium phosphate agent (e.g., CPP-ACP, Ca/P-PILP, niobophosphate)

Immediate (24 h) resin-dentin bond strength (MPa) · Artificial caries-affected dentin (ACAD) in extracted permanent human teeth (in vitro)

In the Self-Etch adhesive + chemical ACAD protocol network, HAp showed 4.455 MPa lower 24 h bond strength than Calcium Phosphate (MD -4.455, 95% CI -8.857 to -0.053; Moderate certainty).

2 findings from 1 review

Ion-releasing restorations (IRR): RMGIC, HVGIC, GIC, compomer/PMRC, giomer vs Composite resin (CR), including bulk-fill composite

Retention [ · Children receiving dental restorations (aged 4-11 years; primary teeth; Class I/II/V cavities)

No significant difference between IRR and CR in restoration retention (high certainty).

1 finding from 1 review