Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

1,954 questions · 2,335 findings · 149 reviews · All outcomes

No studies found 436 · 18.7%GRADE not reported 1,370 · 58.7%Very low 254 · 10.9%Low 173 · 7.4%Moderate 80 · 3.4%High 22 · 0.9%

Amalgam restoration vs Composite resin, compomer, conventional glass-ionomer cement, or resin-modified GIC (head-to-head RCT comparators)

Treatment failure (annual failure rate) · Children with previously unrestored, vital carious lesions in primary teeth (no pulp therapy); aged 1.5-11 years

Amalgam restorations in primary teeth showed a wide annual failure rate (1-28%) across 4 RCTs; the evidence is of low quality (high risk of bias; ungraded).

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

Glass ionomer-based sealant vs No sealant (control/no treatment)

Development of >=1 new carious lesion (caries incidence) · Children with caries-free primary first molars (with or without caries on other teeth), aged 1-5 years (paediatric clinic/dental school,…

Glass ionomer-based sealant may leads to lower development of >=1 new carious lesion (caries incidence) compared with no sealant (low certainty).

2 findings 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

Periodontal treatment (subgingival instrumentation, with or without antimicrobials/surgery) vs usual care or no treatment

Gingival index (GI) · People with diabetes mellitus (type 1 or type 2, mostly type 2) and periodontitis, at least 16 years of age

Periodontal treatment (subgingival instrumentation, with or without… led to lower gingival index (GI) compared with no active intervention/usual care; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

CBT vs inactive control (usual care care, attention control, waitlist)

Adverse events · People aged 12 years and over with painful TMD lasting 3 months or longer
1 finding from 1 review
  • Only 1 study reported adverse events as an outcome (Litt 2010): it found worsening symptoms in 13 people treated with an oral splint (as part of standard treatment) and 4 people treated with CBT.
    1 study · 101 participants
    Very low

Primary school-based interventions (one or more of: school health policy, oral health education, healthy school environment, access to oral health services, community involvement) vs usual practice

Oral hygiene measured by mean gingival scores · Primary school children (aged 3-16 years) attending primary school in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs)

The effect of school-based interventions on gingival scores is uncertain and not statistically significant (SMD 0.12; very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Primary school-based interventions (one or more of: school health policy, oral health education, healthy school environment, access to oral health services, community involvement) vs usual practice

Dental caries · Primary school children (aged 3-16 years) attending primary school in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs)

Among children aged 6-8 years, DMFT scores were significantly reduced (SMD -0.11); subgroup not separately GRADE-rated.

8 findings from 1 review
Show 5 more findings

Single-visit root canal treatment vs Multiple-visit root canal treatment (two or more visits)

Patient‐reported pain intensity or pain relief (VAS, NRS or categorical scale) · People aged 10 years or above requiring root canal treatment; permanent teeth with completely formed apex and without internal resorption

Single-visit root canal treatment showed no clear difference in postoperative pain in the immediate postobturation period (up to 72… compared with multiple-visit root canal treatment (two or more visits) (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Single-visit root canal treatment vs Multiple-visit root canal treatment (two or more visits)

Tooth extraction due to endodontic problems · People aged 10 years or above requiring root canal treatment; permanent teeth with completely formed apex and without internal resorption

It is very uncertain whether single-visit root canal treatment changes tooth extraction due to endodontic problems compared with multiple-visit root canal treatment (two or more visits) (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Primary school-based interventions (one or more of: school health policy, oral health education, healthy school environment, access to oral health services, community involvement) vs usual practice

Annual increment in DMFS (D3) · Primary school children (aged 3-16 years) attending primary school in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs)

Oral-health-education interventions significantly reduced net increment in DMFS (SMD -1.05); no significant subgroup difference vs other interventions (P=0.74).

5 findings from 1 review
Show 2 more findings

Periodontal treatment (subgingival instrumentation, with or without antimicrobials/surgery) vs usual care or no treatment

HbA1c (glycated haemoglobin), change · People with diabetes mellitus (type 1 or type 2, mostly type 2) and periodontitis, at least 16 years of age

Periodontal treatment (subgingival instrumentation, with or without… probably leads to lower hbA1c (glycated haemoglobin), change compared with no active intervention/usual care (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

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

Primary school-based interventions (one or more of: school health policy, oral health education, healthy school environment, access to oral health services, community involvement) vs usual practice

Dental caries prevalence measured by dmft or DMFT/S score greater than one · Primary school children (aged 3-16 years) attending primary school in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs)

School-based interventions may reduce the prevalence of dental caries (RR 0.70, favouring intervention), but the certainty of evidence is very low.

3 findings from 1 review

Hope-based intervention vs Pain education

Patient‐reported pain intensity or pain relief (VAS, NRS or categorical scale) · People aged 12 years and over with painful TMD lasting 3 months or longer

Hope-based intervention showed no clear difference in pain intensity compared with pain education; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Single-visit root canal treatment vs Multiple-visit root canal treatment (two or more visits)

Swelling or flare-up · People aged 10 years or above requiring root canal treatment; permanent teeth with completely formed apex and without internal resorption

It is very uncertain whether single-visit root canal treatment changes swelling or flare-up compared with multiple-visit root canal treatment (two or more visits) (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review