What do systematic reviews say?

Preformed crown (any material; conventional technique or Hall Technique) vs Filling (any material; with or without complete carious tissue excavation; with or without pulp treatment)

Preformed crown (any material; conventional technique or Hall… showed no clear difference in adverse events: gingival bleeding compared with filling (any material; with or without complete carious tissue…; GRADE not reported.

• Preformed crowns for decayed primary molar teeth 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes

  Short term (up to 12 months)
  RR 1.69 [0.61, 4.66]
  2 studies · 226 participants
  GRADE not reported
• Preformed crowns for decayed primary molar teeth 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes

  Long term (12 months)
  RR 1.74 [0.99, 3.06]
  2 studies · 195 participants
  Low

Preformed crown (any material; conventional technique or Hall Technique) vs Filling (any material; with or without complete carious tissue excavation; with or without pulp treatment)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Preformed crowns for decayed primary molar teeth 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes
  Satisfaction with treatment: listed in the Summary of findings table with no data; the studies did not measure this outcome.
  0 studies
  No studies found

Preformed crown (any material; conventional technique or Hall Technique) vs Filling (any material; with or without complete carious tissue excavation; with or without pulp treatment)

Preformed crown (any material; conventional technique or Hall… probably leads to lower pain compared with filling (any material; with or without complete carious tissue… (moderate certainty).

• Preformed crowns for decayed primary molar teeth 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes

  Long term (12 months to 24 months)
  RR 0.15 [0.04, 0.67]
  2 studies · 312 participants
  Moderate
• Preformed crowns for decayed primary molar teeth 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes

  Short term (less than 12 months)
  Short term (less than 12 months): effect not estimable (Analysis 1.2.1; 64 teeth, 32 participants; one study, Hutcheson 2012).
  1 study · 64 participants
  GRADE not reported

Fluoridated milk vs Non-fluoridated milk

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Fluoridated milk for preventing dental caries 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes
  No evidence found. (Correspondence with the author (Maslak 2004) confirmed that no adverse effects were reported.)
  0 studies
  No studies found

Glass ionomer sealant (with fluoride gel plus dentifrice) vs Fluoride gel plus fluoride toothpaste/dentifrice (non-invasive control)

Glass ionomer sealant (with fluoride gel plus dentifrice) showed no clear difference in caries (lesion) progression (radiographic) compared with fluoride gel plus fluoride toothpaste/dentifrice (non-invasive…; GRADE not reported.

• Micro‐invasive interventions for managing proximal dental decay in primary and permanent teeth 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes

  12 to 36 months (radiographic follow-up) · Glass ionomer sealant
  OR 0.13 [0.01, 2.52]
  1 study
  GRADE not reported

Preformed crown (any material; conventional technique or Hall Technique) vs Filling (any material; with or without complete carious tissue excavation; with or without pulp treatment)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Preformed crowns for decayed primary molar teeth 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes
  The studies did not measure this outcome.
  0 studies
  No studies found

Micro-invasive treatment (proximal sealing or resin infiltration): resin sealant, glass ionomer sealant, polyurethane/adhesive patch, or resin infiltration vs Non-invasive / control treatment

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Micro‐invasive interventions for managing proximal dental decay in primary and permanent teeth 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes
  None of the studies reported on participant or operator perception
  0 studies
  No studies found

Adhesive/polyurethane sealant patch vs No treatment (both arms received flossing plus fluoride toothpaste)

Adhesive/polyurethane sealant patch showed no clear difference in caries (lesion) progression (radiographic) compared with no treatment (both arms received flossing plus fluoride toothpaste); GRADE not reported.

• Micro‐invasive interventions for managing proximal dental decay in primary and permanent teeth 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes

  12 to 36 months (radiographic follow-up) · Sealant patch
  OR 1.00 [0.14, 7.23]
  1 study
  GRADE not reported

Micro-invasive treatment (proximal sealing or resin infiltration): resin sealant, glass ionomer sealant, polyurethane/adhesive patch, or resin infiltration vs Non-invasive / control treatment

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Micro‐invasive interventions for managing proximal dental decay in primary and permanent teeth 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes
  None of the studies reported on costs for micro-invasive treatment or non-invasive control
  0 studies
  No studies found

Preformed crown (any material; conventional technique or Hall Technique) vs Filling (any material; with or without complete carious tissue excavation; with or without pulp treatment)

Preformed crown (any material; conventional technique or Hall… probably leads to lower discomfort associated with the procedure compared with filling (any material; with or without complete carious tissue… (moderate certainty).

• Preformed crowns for decayed primary molar teeth 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes

  At time of dental appointment or within 24 hours
  RR 0.56 [0.36, 0.87]
  2 studies · 381 participants
  Moderate

Micro-invasive treatment (proximal sealing or resin infiltration): resin sealant, glass ionomer sealant, polyurethane/adhesive patch, or resin infiltration vs Non-invasive / control treatment

Micro-invasive treatment (proximal sealing or resin infiltration):… probably leads to lower caries (lesion) progression measured by pairwise reading of… compared with non-invasive measures (e.g. fluoride varnish, flossing/oral hygiene… (moderate certainty).

• Micro‐invasive interventions for managing proximal dental decay in primary and permanent teeth 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes

  18 to 36 months (radiographic follow-up)
  OR 0.31 [0.18, 0.53]
  4 studies
  Moderate
• Micro‐invasive interventions for managing proximal dental decay in primary and permanent teeth 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes

  12 to 36 months (radiographic follow-up)
  OR 0.24 [0.14, 0.41]
  7 studies · 365 participants
  Moderate
• Micro‐invasive interventions for managing proximal dental decay in primary and permanent teeth 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes

  12 to 18 months (radiographic follow-up)
  OR 0.18 [0.06, 0.50]
  3 studies
  Moderate

Fluoridated milk vs Non-fluoridated milk

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Fluoridated milk for preventing dental caries 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes
  No evidence found. (No information was reported by the included study.)
  0 studies
  No studies found

Preformed crown (any material; conventional technique or Hall Technique) vs Filling (any material; with or without complete carious tissue excavation; with or without pulp treatment)

• Preformed crowns for decayed primary molar teeth 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes

  Short term (less than 12 months)
  Short term (less than 12 months): no failures in either group; effect not estimable (Analysis 1.1.1; 76 teeth, 38 participants; one study, Hutcheson 2012).
  1 study · 76 participants
  GRADE not reported
• Preformed crowns for decayed primary molar teeth 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes

  Long term (12 months to 48 months)
  RR 0.18 [0.06, 0.56]
  3 studies · 346 participants
  Moderate

Resin sealant (one micro-invasive treatment) vs Resin infiltration alone

• Micro‐invasive interventions for managing proximal dental decay in primary and permanent teeth 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes

  up to 3 years
  Only one study (Martignon 2012) directly compared resin sealant versus resin infiltration; the review could not determine which technique is more advantageous and reported no direct effect estimate for this comparison.
  1 study
  GRADE not reported

Fluoridated milk vs Non-fluoridated milk

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Fluoridated milk for preventing dental caries 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes
  No evidence found. (No information was reported by the included study.)
  0 studies
  No studies found

Fluoridated milk vs Non-fluoridated milk

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Fluoridated milk for preventing dental caries 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes
  No evidence found. (No information was reported by the included study.)
  0 studies
  No studies found

Micro-invasive treatment (proximal sealing or resin infiltration): resin sealant, glass ionomer sealant, polyurethane/adhesive patch, or resin infiltration vs Non-invasive / control treatment

• Micro‐invasive interventions for managing proximal dental decay in primary and permanent teeth 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes

  1 to 3 years
  The four studies that measured adverse events reported no adverse events after micro-invasive treatment (no events in either arm)
  4 studies
  GRADE not reported

Micro-invasive treatment (proximal sealing or resin infiltration): resin sealant, glass ionomer sealant, polyurethane/adhesive patch, or resin infiltration vs Non-invasive / control treatment

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Micro‐invasive interventions for managing proximal dental decay in primary and permanent teeth 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes
  No studies reported on caries measured as change in decayed, missing and filled (DMF/dmf) figures at surface, tooth or whole mouth level
  0 studies
  No studies found

Higher drinking-water fluoride exposure vs Lower water fluoride concentration (concurrent control)

Higher water fluoride concentration (fluoridated water; natural or… may leads to higher dental fluorosis of any level (all severities) compared with lower water fluoride concentration (concurrent control) (low certainty).

• Water fluoridation for the prevention of dental caries 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes

  Cross-sectional
  OR 3.60 [2.86, 4.53]
  90 studies · 180530 participants
  Low

Resin sealant (with or without flossing advice) vs Flossing advice (non-invasive control)

Resin sealant (with or without flossing advice) led to lower caries (lesion) progression (radiographic) compared with flossing advice (non-invasive control); GRADE not reported.

• Micro‐invasive interventions for managing proximal dental decay in primary and permanent teeth 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes

  12 to 36 months (radiographic follow-up) · Resin sealant
  OR 0.33 [0.18, 0.59]
  2 studies
  GRADE not reported