evidencegaps
Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

2,745 questions · 4,389 findings · 203 reviews · Oral Health

Sort:Best matchNewestHighest certaintyDownload CSV
No studies found 39 · 0.9%GRADE not reported 3,844 · 87.6%Very low 198 · 4.5%Low 137 · 3.1%Moderate 134 · 3.1%High 37 · 0.8%

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

Intervention not reported

Inhibition of S. sobrinus growth and biofilm formation (incl. ftf/gtfB/gtfC expression)
1 finding 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

Postbiotic toothpaste vs Fluoride toothpaste alone

Increased salivary pH · children aged 6‐12 years

Postbiotic toothpaste raises salivary pH in one pediatric RCT (ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review
  • Postbiotics and Dental Caries: A Systematic Review. 2025 All outcomes
    4 weeks · Clinical; salivary/plaque sampling
    Postbiotic toothpaste significantly increased salivary pH versus fluoride toothpaste in children (Basir 2022); postbiotics are also proposed to buffer acidic pH; no pooled estimate.
    1 study
    GRADE not reported

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

Severe early childhood caries vs Caries-free controls

Relative abundance of Veillonella spp. · Children under 6 years with severe early childhood caries and caries-free controls

Veillonella spp. mean relative abundance was lower in the S-ECC group; no comparative effect estimate or CI was reported.

1 finding from 1 review

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

Proper surface texture or luster · Children receiving dental restorations (aged 4-11 years; primary teeth; Class I/II/V cavities)

No significant difference between IRR and CR in surface texture or luster (high certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Dental cavity liner (e.g. calcium hydroxide, glass ionomer, resin-modified glass ionomer, or flowable composite) placed under the restoration vs No cavity liner or a different liner material

Secondary prevention of caries · Patients with deep caries lesions in mature or immature permanent (posterior) teeth, with no symptoms or reversible pulpitis

Cavity liners may make little or no difference to secondary caries prevention (~100% prevention across groups; low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review