What do systematic reviews say?

Antimicrobial mouthwash and/or nasal spray (alone or in combination), any concentration, frequency or dosage vs No treatment or saline or water

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Antimicrobial mouthwashes (gargling) and nasal sprays administered to patients with suspected or confirmed COVID‐19… 2020 · Cochrane All outcomes
  No data available (no included studies)
  0 studies
  No studies found

Any antimicrobial mouthwash and/or nasal spray (alone or in combination), at any concentration, delivered to the patient or HCW before and/or after an AGP vs No treatment or saline or water

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Antimicrobial mouthwashes (gargling) and nasal sprays to protect healthcare workers when undertaking… 2020 · Cochrane All outcomes
  No data available (no included studies)
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

Resin-based fissure sealant vs Fluoride varnish

It is very uncertain whether resin-based fissure sealant changes dentine caries in permanent molars (yes/no) compared with fluoride varnish (very low certainty).

• Pit and fissure sealants versus fluoride varnishes for preventing dental decay in the permanent teeth of children and… 2020 · Cochrane All outcomes

  2-3 years
  OR 0.67 [0.37, 1.19]
  4 studies · 1683 participants
  Very low

Chemical cured composite vs Glass ionomer cement (GIC)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Adhesives for fixed orthodontic brackets 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes

  To end of appliance treatment
  It was surprising that decalcification rates were not reported as a secondary outcome, as clinically it is suggested that GIC is protective against decalcification; the…
  0 studies
  No studies found

Chemical cured composite vs Light cured composite

• Adhesives for fixed orthodontic brackets 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes

  To end of appliance treatment
  Additional Table 1 summarises the proportion of bracket failures for a CC and LC composite with two different bracket bases (O'Brien 1989). The paper reported the results of applying a Mantel-Haenszel Chi2 test which…
  1 study · 52 participants
  GRADE not reported

Composite (chemical or light cured) vs Resin-modified glass ionomer cement

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Adhesives for fixed orthodontic brackets 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes

  To end of appliance treatment
  No included studies involved a comparison with resin-modified glass ionomer cement (a planned adhesive group). The authors recommended future randomised controlled trials involving resin-modified light cured glass…
  0 studies
  No studies found

Chemical cured composite vs Glass ionomer cement (GIC)

• Adhesives for fixed orthodontic brackets 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes

  To end of appliance treatment
  The one trial article for this adhesive comparison reported the results of paired t-tests comparing different sides of the mouth. No standard deviations were presented, so we were unable to reproduce the data. The…
  1 study · 60 participants
  GRADE not reported

Chemical cured composite vs Light-cured compomer (polyacid-modified composite resin)

• Adhesives for fixed orthodontic brackets 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes

  To end of appliance treatment
  However the paper reported that the compomer offered better protection against decalcification when compared by a sign test (P = 0.0075) (Millett 2000). No effect estimate or confidence interval was reported.
  1 study · 45 participants
  GRADE not reported

Chemical cured composite vs Light-cured compomer (polyacid-modified composite resin)

Chemical cured composite showed no clear difference in bracket (bond) failure compared with compomer (polyacid-modified resin composite); GRADE not reported.

• Adhesives for fixed orthodontic brackets 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes

  To end of appliance treatment
  OR 0.86 [0.24, 2.98]
  1 study · 45 participants
  GRADE not reported

Chemically cured glass ionomer cement vs Light-cured compomer (polyacid-modified composite resin)

• Adhesives for fixed orthodontic bands 2016 · Cochrane All outcomes

  Approximately 12 months (to end of treatment)
  Williams 2005 (30 participants): a statistically significant difference in patient taste preference in favour of the glass ionomer over the light-cured composite resin (compomer).
  1 study · 30 participants
  GRADE not reported

Chemically cured glass ionomer cement vs Chemically cured glass phosphonate

• Adhesives for fixed orthodontic bands 2016 · Cochrane All outcomes

  Approximately 12 months (to end of treatment)
  Clark 2003: no statistically significant difference in taste between the two cements (glass ionomer vs glass phosphonate); authors caution the finding because both cements were used at the same sitting, so the taste of…
  1 study
  GRADE not reported

Chemically cured zinc phosphate cement vs Glass ionomer cement (GIC)

• Adhesives for fixed orthodontic bands 2016 · Cochrane All outcomes

  Approximately 12 months (to end of treatment)
  No statistical analysis. Kvam 1983 (28 participants): 4 teeth affected by small decalcification spots (reversed by polishing and fluoride), all with the zinc phosphate cement. Galarraga 2003 (40 participants): 8…
  2 studies · 68 participants
  GRADE not reported

Chemically cured glass ionomer cement vs Light-cured compomer (polyacid-modified composite resin)

• Adhesives for fixed orthodontic bands 2016 · Cochrane All outcomes

  Approximately 12 months (to end of treatment)
  Gillgrass 2001 (98 participants): comparison of change in mean enamel white spot lesion scores during treatment showed no statistically significant difference between chemically cured glass ionomer and light-cured…
  1 study · 98 participants
  GRADE not reported

Fluoride varnish vs placebo or no treatment

Fluoride varnish showed no clear difference in proportion of children developing one or more new caries… compared with placebo or no treatment; GRADE not reported.

• Fluoride varnishes for preventing dental caries in children and adolescents 2013 · Cochrane All outcomes

  At least 1 year · Primary/deciduous dentition
  RR 0.81 [0.62, 1.06]
  5 studies · 1228 participants
  GRADE not reported

Fluoride varnish vs placebo or no treatment

• Fluoride varnishes for preventing dental caries in children and adolescents 2013 · Cochrane All outcomes

  At least 1 year
  Three trials (Salazar 2008; Skold 2005; Weintraub 2006) provided data reporting no adverse effects. There was little information concerning possible adverse effects; no pooled estimate was possible.
  3 studies
  GRADE not reported

Fluoride varnish vs placebo or no treatment

• Fluoride varnishes for preventing dental caries in children and adolescents 2013 · Cochrane All outcomes

  At least 1 year · Primary/deciduous dentition
  PF 0.65 [0.48, 0.82]
  2 studies · 322 participants
  GRADE not reported

Fluoride varnish vs placebo or no treatment

Fluoride varnish showed no clear difference in proportion of children developing one or more new caries (permanent… compared with placebo or no treatment; GRADE not reported.

• Fluoride varnishes for preventing dental caries in children and adolescents 2013 · Cochrane All outcomes

  At least 1 year
  RR 0.75 [0.53, 1.05]
  5 studies · 3253 participants
  GRADE not reported

Fluoride varnish vs placebo or no treatment

• Fluoride varnishes for preventing dental caries in children and adolescents 2013 · Cochrane All outcomes

  At least 1 year
  PF 0.44 [0.11, 0.76]
  5 studies
  GRADE not reported

Fluoride varnish vs placebo or no treatment

• Fluoride varnishes for preventing dental caries in children and adolescents 2013 · Cochrane All outcomes

  At least 1 year
  PF 0.43 [0.30, 0.57]
  13 studies · 6478 participants
  Moderate

Fluoride varnish vs placebo or no treatment

• Fluoride varnishes for preventing dental caries in children and adolescents 2013 · Cochrane All outcomes

  At least 1 year · Primary/deciduous dentition
  PF 0.37 [0.24, 0.51]
  10 studies · 3804 participants
  Moderate