evidencegaps
Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

1,378 questions · 2,146 findings · 145 reviews · Oral Health

Sort:Best matchNewestHighest certaintyDownload CSV
No studies found 167 · 7.8%GRADE not reported 1,674 · 78%Very low 148 · 6.9%Low 113 · 5.3%Moderate 40 · 1.9%High 4 · 0.2%

Interdental brushing plus toothbrushing vs Toothbrushing alone

Interproximal caries · Adults, 16 years and older (dentate)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

2 findings from 2 reviews · compare the 2 reviews

Interdental brushing plus toothbrushing vs Flossing plus toothbrushing

Interproximal caries · Adults, 16 years and older (dentate)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

2 findings from 2 reviews · compare the 2 reviews

Pre-radiotherapy extraction of diseased molar teeth vs Conservative treatment (restoration of the teeth and leaving them in place during radiotherapy, with oral health education and disease prevention: oral hygiene, fluoride, diet advice)

Development of post-radiotherapy dental complications (caries, fractured teeth, periapical infection, periodontal disease, osteoradionecrosis) · Patients diagnosed with head and neck cancer planned to undergo any type of radiotherapy (external beam, intensity modulated,…

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Pre-radiotherapy extraction of healthy molar teeth vs Conservative treatment (leaving the teeth in place during radiotherapy, with oral health education and disease prevention: oral hygiene, fluoride, diet advice)

Development of post-radiotherapy dental complications (caries, fractured teeth, periapical infection, periodontal disease, osteoradionecrosis) · Patients diagnosed with head and neck cancer planned to undergo any type of radiotherapy (external beam, intensity modulated,…

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Caries assessment at dentine threshold (cavitation into dentine) vs None (descriptive prevalence review; subgroup analyses by urban/rural status, country and year)

Dental caries prevalence · European adolescents aged 12–19 years

Caries prevalence at the dentine threshold was about 56% (pooled 0.56, 95% CI 0.43 to 0.68; 15 studies; not GRADE-rated).

7 findings from 1 review
Show 4 more findings

Enamel caries quantification (DeS/DeT within total D(M)FS/D(M)FT) vs None (descriptive prevalence review; subgroup analyses by urban/rural status, country and year)

Enamel caries proportion · European adolescents aged 12–19 years

Enamel caries made up about half of total caries experience (pooled proportion 0.50, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.65; 7 studies; higher in 12–15 than 16–19-year-olds; not GRADE-rated).

3 findings from 1 review

Caries experience measurement (mean D(M)FS, enamel lesions included) vs None (descriptive prevalence review; subgroup analyses by urban/rural status, country and year)

Dental caries · European adolescents aged 12–19 years

Mean caries experience (DMFS) in subgroup 'Examination type: full-mouth' was 6.56 (95% CI 4.55 to 9.47; 12 studies).

11 findings from 1 review
Show 8 more findings

Caries distribution assessment (individual, tooth and surface levels) vs None (descriptive prevalence review; subgroup analyses by urban/rural status, country and year)

Caries distribution (individual/tooth/surface level) · European adolescents aged 12–19 years

Caries distribution was skewed at individual, tooth and surface levels and too heterogeneous to meta-analyze (narrative synthesis of 11 studies; not GRADE-rated).

1 finding from 1 review

Caries assessment at enamel threshold vs None (descriptive prevalence review; subgroup analyses by urban/rural status, country and year)

Dental caries prevalence · European adolescents aged 12–19 years

Enamel-threshold caries prevalence in subgroup 'Region: non-Scandinavian' was 0.74 (95% CI 0.53 to 0.96; 11 studies).

11 findings from 1 review
Show 8 more findings

Caries severity measurement (mean number of decayed, missing and filled permanent teeth, DMFT; WHO criteria) vs None (descriptive prevalence review; subgroup analyses by urban/rural status, country and year)

Dental caries · 12-year-old children (permanent dentition) in Africa

Pooled mean DMFT in Sudan was 0.49 (95% CI 0.461 to 0.519; 1 article(s); not GRADE-rated).

22 findings from 1 review
Show 19 more findings

Oral-health promotion programs (OHPPs): community-based oral-health education/training, supervised toothbrushing with fluoride toothpaste and topical fluoride, dental screening, and dietary advice vs No oral-health promotion program, or a differing (usual-care) action under similar conditions

Incremental cost‐effectiveness · Children younger than 6 years (healthy except for dental caries)

In children younger than 6 years, OHPPs were associated with lower cost per DMFT/S (OR 0.07, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.32; ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Oral-health promotion programs (OHPPs): community-based oral-health education/training, supervised toothbrushing with fluoride toothpaste and topical fluoride, dental screening, and dietary advice vs No oral-health promotion program, or a differing (usual-care) action under similar conditions

Cost‐effectiveness · Children aged 6 years and older (healthy except for dental caries)

In children aged 6 years and older, the cost-effectiveness estimate was extremely imprecise and not significant (OR 0.00, 95% CI 0.00 to 48704.6; ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Oral-health promotion programs (OHPPs): community-based oral-health education/training, supervised toothbrushing with fluoride toothpaste and topical fluoride, dental screening, and dietary advice vs No oral-health promotion program, or a differing (usual-care) action under similar conditions

Incremental cost‐effectiveness · Children with dental caries

OHPPs were associated with a lower program cost per DMFT/S in about 97 of 100 programs (OR 0.03, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.11; ungraded, very high heterogeneity I2=99%).

1 finding from 1 review

Silver diamine fluoride (SDF) vs Other methods (pooled: ART/glass ionomer cement, nano-silver fluoride, placebo)

Caries arrestment at the individual (patient) level · Children and adults with active dental caries (aged 1-50; mostly preschool/school children with primary dentition)

Compared with other caries-management methods, SDF may increase caries arrestment at the individual level, but the pooled estimate is very imprecise (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Silver diamine fluoride (SDF) vs Atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) with glass ionomer cement (GIC) or glass ionomer material

Caries arrestment at the individual (patient) level · Children and adults with active dental caries (aged 1-50; mostly preschool/school children with primary dentition)

In one trial, SDF greatly increased individual-level caries arrestment versus ART/glass ionomer cement (OR 18.03); this subgroup was not separately GRADE-rated.

1 finding from 1 review

Silver diamine fluoride (SDF) vs Fluoride varnish

Caries arrestment at the tooth level · Children and adults with active dental caries (aged 1-50; mostly preschool/school children with primary dentition)

In one trial, SDF increased tooth-level caries arrestment versus 5% sodium fluoride varnish (OR 4.75; ungraded subgroup).

1 finding from 1 review

Silver diamine fluoride (SDF) vs Fluoride varnish

Caries arrestment at the surface level · Children and adults with active dental caries (aged 1-50; mostly preschool/school children with primary dentition)

Pooling two highly heterogeneous trials, SDF showed no significant difference versus 5% sodium fluoride varnish in surface-level caries arrestment (OR 1.46; ungraded subgroup).

1 finding from 1 review

Silver diamine fluoride (SDF) vs Nano-silver fluoride (NSF; with or without green tea extract)

Caries arrestment at the surface level · Children and adults with active dental caries (aged 1-50; mostly preschool/school children with primary dentition)

In one trial, nano-silver fluoride arrested more surfaces than SDF (OR 0.52 favoring the comparator; ungraded subgroup).

1 finding from 1 review