Calculus · Dentate adults aged 16 years or older (excluding orthodontic patients and those with severe periodontal disease)
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
Quality of life · Dentate adults aged 16 years or older (excluding orthodontic patients and those with severe periodontal disease)
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
Restoration failure · Children aged 12 years or younger with tooth decay involving at least one tooth in the primary dentition, symptomatic or symptom free
Aesthetic (resin-veneered) crowns showed no clear difference in restoration failure at 6 months compared with conventional metal (stainless steel) crowns; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Marginal integrity (cervical) failures at 24 months · Children aged 12 years or younger with tooth decay involving at least one tooth in the primary dentition, symptomatic or symptom free
Compomer (Dyract) led to lower marginal integrity (cervical) failures at 24 months compared with amalgam (Tytin); GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Surface texture failures at 24 months · Children aged 12 years or younger with tooth decay involving at least one tooth in the primary dentition, symptomatic or symptom free
Compomer (Dyract) showed no clear difference in surface texture failures at 24 months compared with amalgam (Tytin); GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Occlusion · Children aged 12 years or younger with tooth decay involving at least one tooth in the primary dentition, symptomatic or symptom free
Aesthetic (resin-veneered) crowns led to lower occlusion at 6 months compared with conventional metal (stainless steel) crowns; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Cervical gaps on bitewing X-rays at 24 months · Children aged 12 years or younger with tooth decay involving at least one tooth in the primary dentition, symptomatic or symptom free
Compomer (Dyract) showed no clear difference in cervical gaps on bitewing X-rays at 24 months compared with amalgam (Tytin); GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Proximal contact at 6 months · Children aged 12 years or younger with tooth decay involving at least one tooth in the primary dentition, symptomatic or symptom free
Aesthetic (resin-veneered) crowns led to lower proximal contact at 6 months compared with conventional metal (stainless steel) crowns; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Marginal integrity of restoration · Children aged 12 years or younger with tooth decay involving at least one tooth in the primary dentition, symptomatic or symptom free
Aesthetic (resin-veneered) crowns led to lower marginal integrity at 6 months compared with conventional metal (stainless steel) crowns; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Marginal integrity (occlusal) failures at 24 months · Children aged 12 years or younger with tooth decay involving at least one tooth in the primary dentition, symptomatic or symptom free
Compomer (Dyract) showed no clear difference in marginal integrity (occlusal) failures at 24 months compared with amalgam (Tytin); GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Radiolucencies on bitewing X-rays at 24 months · Children aged 12 years or younger with tooth decay involving at least one tooth in the primary dentition, symptomatic or symptom free
Compomer (Dyract) showed no clear difference in radiolucencies on bitewing X-rays at 24 months compared with amalgam (Tytin); GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Replacement (failure) of Class II restoration at 12 months · Children aged 12 years or younger with tooth decay involving at least one tooth in the primary dentition, symptomatic or symptom free
Resin-modified glass ionomer (Vitremer) showed no clear difference in replacement (failure) of Class II restoration at 12 months compared with amalgam; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Gingival health at 6 months · Children aged 12 years or younger with tooth decay involving at least one tooth in the primary dentition, symptomatic or symptom free
Aesthetic (resin-veneered) crowns showed no clear difference in gingival health at 6 months compared with conventional metal (stainless steel) crowns; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Unacceptability of treatment (drop-outs / leaving study early) · Children and adolescents aged 16 years or less
Fluoride toothpaste showed no clear difference in unacceptability of treatment (drop-outs) compared with fluoride mouthrinse; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
RR 0.89 [0.78, 1.00]
5 studies
GRADE not reported
Unacceptability of treatment (drop-outs / leaving study early) · Children and adolescents aged 16 years or less
Fluoride mouthrinse combined with fluoride toothpaste showed no clear difference in unacceptability of treatment (drop-outs / leaving study early) compared with fluoride mouthrinse alone; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Unacceptability of treatment (drop-outs / leaving study early) · Children and adolescents aged 16 years or less
Fluoride gel combined with fluoride mouthrinse showed no clear difference in unacceptability of treatment (drop-outs / leaving study early) compared with fluoride gel alone; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Adverse effects (tooth staining and other side effects) · Children and adolescents aged 16 years or less
1 finding from 1 review
Unacceptability of treatment (drop-outs / leaving study early) · Children and adolescents aged 16 years or less
Fluoride varnish combined with fluoride toothpaste showed no clear difference in unacceptability of treatment (drop-outs / leaving study early) compared with fluoride varnish alone; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Unacceptability of treatment (drop-outs / leaving study early) · Children and adolescents aged 16 years or less
Fluoride varnish combined with fluoride toothpaste showed no clear difference in unacceptability of treatment (drop-outs / leaving study early) compared with fluoride toothpaste alone; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Adverse effects: dental fluorosis · Children and adolescents aged 16 years or less
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review