Caries increment, surface index D(M)FS · Children and adolescents with immature permanent dentition (aged 5 to 16 years at study start)
1700 to 2200 ppm F toothpaste showed no clear difference in caries increment, surface index D(M)FS compared with 440 to 550 ppm F toothpaste (low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
SMD -0.2 [-0.41, 0.01]
Studies not reported
Low
Caries increment, surface index D(M)FS · Children and adolescents with immature permanent dentition (aged 5 to 16 years at study start)
2400 to 2800 ppm F toothpaste may leads to lower caries increment, surface index D(M)FS compared with non-fluoride (0 ppm F) placebo toothpaste (low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
SMD -0.41 [-0.49, -0.33]
3 studies
Low
Caries increment, surface index D(M)FS · Children and adolescents with immature permanent dentition (aged 5 to 16 years at study start)
1000 to 1250 ppm F toothpaste leads to lower caries increment, surface index D(M)FS compared with non-fluoride (0 ppm F) placebo toothpaste (high certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
SMD -0.28 [-0.32, -0.25]
55 studies
High
Caries increment, surface index D(M)FS · Children and adolescents with immature permanent dentition (aged 5 to 16 years at study start)
2400 to 2800 ppm F toothpaste showed no clear difference in caries increment, surface index D(M)FS compared with 1450 to 1500 ppm F toothpaste (moderate certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
SMD -0.05 [-0.14, 0.05]
2 studies
Moderate
Proportion developing new caries · Young children with primary (deciduous) dentition (aged 1 to 6 years at study start)
1450 ppm F toothpaste showed no clear difference in proportion developing new caries compared with 250 ppm F toothpaste (low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Microbial reduction (viable count, log CFU/mL) · Patients with dental caries (in vivo cariogenic microorganisms, including children with early childhood caries)
In randomized clinical trials, photodynamic therapy significantly reduced cariogenic microbial counts versus untreated control (SMD -1.16, 95% CI -2.02 to -0.30; 2 trials), but heterogeneity was high (I2=70%) and considered too high to rely on; certainty was not graded.
1 finding from 1 review
Caries increment, tooth index D(M)FT · Children and adolescents with immature permanent dentition (aged 5 to 16 years at study start)
250 ppm F toothpaste showed no clear difference in caries increment, tooth index D(M)FT compared with non-fluoride (0 ppm F) placebo toothpaste (low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
SMD -0.11 [-0.27, 0.05]
1 study
Low
Caries increment, surface index D(M)FS · Children and adolescents with immature permanent dentition (aged 5 to 16 years at study start)
440 to 550 ppm F toothpaste showed no clear difference in caries increment, surface index D(M)FS compared with 250 ppm F toothpaste (low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
SMD 0.03 [-0.17, 0.23]
1 study
Low
Proportion developing new caries · Children and adolescents with immature permanent dentition (aged 5 to 16 years at study start)
250 ppm F toothpaste showed no clear difference in proportion developing new caries compared with non-fluoride (0 ppm F) placebo toothpaste (low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Discomfort associated with the procedure · People with dental caries in primary teeth (mainly children)
ART using high-viscosity glass ionomer cement (H-GIC), hand… showed no clear difference in participant experience (discomfort during procedure) compared with conventional treatment using H-GIC (rotary instruments); GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Restoration failure (primary dentition) · Children with carious primary teeth
ART using H-GIC showed no clear difference in restoration failure (primary teeth) compared with conventional treatment using amalgam; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
OR 2.15 [0.73, 6.35]
2 studies
GRADE not reported
Pain (during procedure, primary dentition) · People with dental caries in primary teeth (mainly children)
ART using high-viscosity glass ionomer cement (H-GIC), hand… showed no clear difference in pain (during procedure, primary dentition) compared with conventional treatment using H-GIC (rotary instruments) (low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Costs (direct and indirect) · People with dental caries in primary teeth (mainly children)
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
Restoration failure (primary dentition) · Children and adolescents with dental caries (primary teeth and permanent immature teeth)
ART using glass ionomer cement (GIC) showed no clear difference in restoration failure (primary teeth) compared with conventional treatment using amalgam; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Adverse events · People with dental caries in primary teeth (mainly children)
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
Pain · Children with carious primary teeth
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
Pain: Not measured.
0 studies
No studies found
Restoration failure (permanent dentition) · Children with carious primary teeth
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
Adverse events · Children with carious primary teeth
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
Restoration failure (permanent, immature teeth) · Children and adolescents with dental caries (primary teeth and permanent immature teeth)
ART using glass ionomer cement (GIC) led to higher restoration failure (permanent, immature teeth) compared with conventional treatment using amalgam; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Restoration failure (primary dentition) · Children with carious primary teeth
It is very uncertain whether ART using composite resin changes restoration failure (primary dentition) compared with conventional treatment using composite resin (very low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review