Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

4,315 questions · 23,557 findings · 2,311 reviews

No studies found 4,183 · 17.8%GRADE not reported 3,930 · 16.7%Very low 5,371 · 22.8%Low 5,787 · 24.6%Moderate 3,320 · 14.1%High 966 · 4.1%

Ranked among the 5,000 newest matching findings; add words or filters to narrow the search.

Fluoride toothpaste vs Not applicable (single-group prevalence)

Fluoride toothpaste use prevalence (among children with caries) · Children with dental caries (deciduous and/or permanent dentition) in low- and middle-income countries

About 39% of children with caries in LMICs used fluoride toothpaste (pooled prevalence 0.391, 95% CI 0.166 to 0.644; 2 studies; not GRADE-rated).

1 finding from 1 review

Tranexamic acid (AMCA cones) vs Placebo (lactose cones)

Presence of dry socket · Adults (>18 years) having permanent tooth extraction (predominantly mandibular third molars)

Tranexamic acid (AMCA cones) showed no clear difference in presence of dry socket compared with placebo (lactose cones); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Apernyl (acetylsalicylic acid pellet) vs placebo

Presence of dry socket · Adults (>18 years) having permanent tooth extraction (predominantly mandibular third molars)

Apernyl (acetylsalicylic acid pellet) showed no clear difference in presence of dry socket compared with placebo; GRADE not reported.

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

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).

9 findings from 1 review
Show 6 more findings

Machine-learning algorithms for dental caries detection vs Different machine-learning algorithms for caries prediction

Caries detection accuracy in unrestored molars and premolars · Dental images of human beings

The review reported 92.37% accuracy for automated caries detection in Duong et al. (Ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Combined antiretroviral therapy (post-cART) vs Pre-cART (same children, before therapy)

Oral candidiasis prevalence · Children and adolescents (<18 years) living with HIV (CLWH)

Oral candidiasis prevalence fell significantly after cART compared with before cART in the same children (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Caregiver help with child tooth brushing vs Not applicable (single-group prevalence)

Caregiver help with tooth brushing prevalence (among children with caries) · Children with dental caries (deciduous and/or permanent dentition) in low- and middle-income countries

About 54% of children with caries in LMICs received caregiver help with tooth brushing (pooled prevalence 0.541, 95% CI 0.266 to 0.803; 3 studies; not GRADE-rated).

1 finding from 1 review

Female sex vs Not applicable (single-group prevalence)

Female sex prevalence (among children with caries) · Children with dental caries (deciduous and/or permanent dentition) in low- and middle-income countries

Among children with caries in LMICs, about half were female (pooled prevalence 0.497, 95% CI 0.475 to 0.519; 6 studies; I2=0%; not GRADE-rated).

1 finding from 1 review

Sugary drinks/sweets consumption vs Not applicable (single-group prevalence)

Sugary drinks/sweets consumption prevalence (among children with caries) · Children with dental caries (deciduous and/or permanent dentition) in low- and middle-income countries

About 70% of children with caries in LMICs consumed sugary drinks/sweets (pooled prevalence 0.697, 95% CI 0.478 to 0.877; 7 studies; very high heterogeneity; not GRADE-rated).

1 finding from 1 review