Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

602 questions · 963 findings · 90 reviews

No studies found 118 · 12.3%GRADE not reported 578 · 60%Very low 93 · 9.7%Low 92 · 9.6%Moderate 59 · 6.1%High 23 · 2.4%

Laser fluorescence (LF; DIAGNOdent) vs Reference standard

More advanced caries lesion detection · Permanent teeth with occlusal surfaces

Pooled specificity was reported, but the numerical estimate is not stated in the supplied text or attached figures; I²=77%; no GRADE rating was reported.

2 findings from 1 review

Laser fluorescence (LF; DIAGNOdent) vs Reference standard (histology, excavation, or enhanced visual examination)

Relative DOR by setting (LF, advanced, occlusal permanent) · Permanent teeth, occlusal surfaces, with suspected caries lesions

For LF on occlusal permanent teeth (advanced threshold), laboratory studies had significantly lower diagnostic accuracy than clinical studies (RDOR 0.28, 0.12 to 0.66).

2 findings from 1 review

Fluorescence camera (FC) vs Reference standard (histology, excavation, or enhanced visual examination)

Diagnostic accuracy (pooled sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio, summary-ROC AUC) · Primary teeth, occlusal surfaces, with suspected caries lesions

Fluorescence camera on occlusal surfaces of primary teeth (more advanced-lesion threshold): pooled DOR highest for FC among the three methods; heterogeneity I2=80%. Diagnostic accuracy was not formally graded (GRADE not used).

2 findings from 1 review

Laser fluorescence (DIAGNOdent 2190/pen) vs Reference standard (histology, excavation, or enhanced visual examination)

Diagnostic accuracy (pooled sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio, summary-ROC AUC) · Primary teeth, approximal surfaces, with suspected caries lesions

Pen-type laser fluorescence on approximal surfaces of primary teeth (initial-lesion threshold): only LFpen had sufficient studies to pool; heterogeneity I2=84%. Diagnostic accuracy was not formally graded (GRADE not used).

2 findings from 1 review

Partial caries removal (single stage; residual dentinal caries sealed into the tooth definitively) vs Complete caries removal

Signs or symptoms of pulpal disease · Patients with carious teeth, affecting any tooth surface(s), in unrestored primary and permanent teeth

Partial caries removal (single stage; residual dentinal caries… showed no clear difference in signs or symptoms of pulpal disease compared with complete caries removal (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Laser fluorescence (LF; DIAGNOdent) vs Reference standard

More advanced caries lesion detection · Primary teeth with occlusal surfaces

Pooled sensitivity was reported, but the numerical estimate is not stated in the supplied text or attached figures; I²=23%; no GRADE rating was reported.

2 findings from 1 review

Fluorescence camera (FC) vs Reference standard

More advanced caries lesion detection · Permanent teeth with occlusal surfaces

Pooled specificity was reported, but the numerical estimate is not stated in the supplied text or attached figures; I²=17%; no GRADE rating was reported.

2 findings from 1 review

Laser fluorescence (DIAGNOdent 2190/pen) vs Reference standard (histology, excavation, or enhanced visual examination)

Relative DOR by reference standard (LFpen, advanced, occlusal permanent) · Permanent teeth, occlusal surfaces, with suspected caries lesions

No significant reference-standard difference for LFpen at the advanced threshold (RDOR 0.96, 0.12 to 7.77).

1 finding from 1 review

Fluorescence camera (FC) vs Reference standard (histology, excavation, or enhanced visual examination)

Diagnostic accuracy (pooled sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio, summary-ROC AUC) · Permanent teeth, occlusal surfaces, with suspected caries lesions

Fluorescence camera on occlusal surfaces of permanent teeth (initial-lesion threshold): accuracy similar among the three methods (very low inconsistency); heterogeneity I2=0%. Diagnostic accuracy was not formally graded (GRADE not used).

2 findings from 1 review

Laser fluorescence (LF; DIAGNOdent) vs Reference standard (histology, excavation, or enhanced visual examination)

Diagnostic accuracy (pooled sensitivity, specificity, diagnostic odds ratio, summary-ROC AUC) · Primary teeth, occlusal surfaces, with suspected caries lesions

Laser fluorescence on occlusal surfaces of primary teeth (more advanced-lesion threshold): pooled DOR lowest for LF among the three methods; heterogeneity I2=23%. Diagnostic accuracy was not formally graded (GRADE not used).

2 findings from 1 review

Laser fluorescence (LF; DIAGNOdent) vs Reference standard

Initial caries lesion detection · Primary teeth with occlusal surfaces

Pooled specificity was reported, but the numerical estimate is not stated in the supplied text or attached figures; I²=75%; no GRADE rating was reported.

2 findings from 1 review

Quantitative light-induced fluorescence (QLF) vs Reference standard (histology, excavation, or enhanced visual examination)

Diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity, specificity) - not pooled · Permanent teeth (occlusal and smooth surfaces), with suspected caries lesions

Only 3 QLF studies were included, so no pooled estimate of QLF diagnostic accuracy could be calculated (evidence not graded).

1 finding from 1 review

No dentinal caries removal (caries sealed under a preformed metal crown or restoration without removing dentinal caries) vs Complete caries removal

Signs or symptoms of pulpal disease · Patients with carious teeth, affecting any tooth surface(s), in unrestored primary and permanent teeth

No dentinal caries removal (caries sealed under a preformed metal… showed no clear difference in signs or symptoms of pulpal disease compared with complete caries removal (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Laser fluorescence (LF; DIAGNOdent) vs Reference standard (histology, excavation, or enhanced visual examination)

Diagnostic accuracy (sensitivity, specificity) - not pooled · Permanent and primary teeth, smooth surfaces, with suspected caries lesions

Only 2 LF studies assessed smooth surfaces, so no pooled estimate was possible; both reported higher specificity than sensitivity (evidence not graded).

1 finding from 1 review

High-viscosity glass-ionomer ART restorations vs No comparator

Restoration survival · Permanent posterior teeth with single-surface cavities

The pooled survival rate was 93% at 2 years.

6 findings from 1 review
Show 3 more findings

High-viscosity glass-ionomer ART restorations vs No comparator

Restoration survival · Permanent posterior teeth with multiple-surface cavities

The pooled survival rate was 41% at 2 years.

3 findings from 1 review

High-viscosity glass-ionomer ART restorations vs No comparator

Restoration survival · Primary posterior teeth with single-surface cavities

The pooled survival rate was 95% at 1 year.

3 findings from 1 review

High-viscosity glass-ionomer ART restorations vs No comparator

Restoration survival · Primary posterior teeth with multiple-surface cavities

The pooled survival rate was 62% at 2 years.

3 findings from 1 review

Potassium containing toothpaste (5% potassium nitrate) vs Control toothpaste (without potassium)

Tactile sensitivity (method a, ordinal scale) · Healthy human adults (18 years or more) with dentine hypersensitivity from exposed root surfaces

Potassium containing toothpaste (5% potassium nitrate) led to lower tactile sensitivity (method a, ordinal scale) compared with control toothpaste (without potassium); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Potassium containing toothpaste (5% potassium nitrate) vs Control toothpaste (without potassium)

Thermal sensitivity · Healthy human adults (18 years or more) with dentine hypersensitivity from exposed root surfaces

Potassium containing toothpaste (5% potassium nitrate) led to lower thermal sensitivity compared with control toothpaste (without potassium); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review