Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

65 questions · 82 findings · 9 reviews

No studies found 12 · 14.6%GRADE not reported 57 · 69.5%Very low 9 · 11%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 4 · 4.9%High 0 · 0%

Slow-release fluoride devices vs Alternative fluoride therapy (topical fluoride: toothpaste, mouthrinse, gel, or varnish)

Outcome not reported · Children or adults

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Active rinse (zinc acetate + chlorhexidine + sodium fluoride), with or without tongue scraping vs Negative control rinse, with or without tongue scraping

OLT and VSC scores · Adolescents and adults aged over 16 years with clinical or self-assessed halitosis of oral origin; excluding induced or physiological…
1 finding from 1 review
  • Interventions for managing halitosis 2019 · Cochrane All outcomes
    Ademovski 2012 (4-arm cross-over trial) compared an active rinse (with/without tongue scraping) versus a negative control rinse (with/without tongue scraping); OLT and VSC. The authors did not report the correlation…
    1 study
    GRADE not reported

Fluoride supplementation (tablets, drops, lozenges or chewing gum) vs Topical fluoride (fluoride rinse, varnish or toothpaste)

Fluorosis (adverse effect; % of children with fluorotic teeth) · Children and adolescents aged 16 years or less

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Fluoride supplementation (tablets, drops, lozenges or chewing gum) vs Topical fluoride (fluoride rinse, varnish or toothpaste)

Caries increment in permanent teeth · Children and adolescents aged 16 years or less
2 findings from 1 review

Fluoride supplementation (tablets, drops, lozenges or chewing gum) vs Topical fluoride (fluoride rinse, varnish or toothpaste)

Plaque and gingivitis scores · Children and adolescents aged 16 years or less
1 finding from 1 review

Slow-release fluoride device (fluoride glass beads) vs Fluoride mouthrinse

Number of participants with more severe DLs (severity of DLs) · Orthodontic patients of any age with fixed braces (new DLs assessed at debond)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Slow-release fluoride device (fluoride glass beads) vs Fluoride mouthrinse

Adverse effects · Orthodontic patients of any age with fixed braces (new DLs assessed at debond)
1 finding from 1 review

Slow-release fluoride device (fluoride glass beads) vs Fluoride mouthrinse

Number of participants with new demineralised lesions (DLs) · Orthodontic patients of any age with fixed braces (new DLs assessed at debond)

It is very uncertain whether intraoral fluoride-releasing glass bead device attached to the brace changes number of participants with new demineralised lesions (DLs) compared with 250 ppm F (daily) fluoride mouthrinse (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Fluoride varnish combined with fluoride toothpaste vs Fluoride varnish

Unacceptability of treatment (drop-outs / leaving study early) · Children and adolescents aged 16 years or less

Fluoride varnish combined with fluoride toothpaste showed no clear difference in unacceptability of treatment (drop-outs / leaving study early) compared with fluoride varnish alone; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Fluoride varnish combined with fluoride toothpaste vs Fluoride toothpaste alone

Unacceptability of treatment (drop-outs / leaving study early) · Children and adolescents aged 16 years or less

Fluoride varnish combined with fluoride toothpaste showed no clear difference in unacceptability of treatment (drop-outs / leaving study early) compared with fluoride toothpaste alone; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

1400/250 ppm F (amine F/SnF2) toothpaste + mouthrinse, daily vs 1400/250 ppm F (NaF) toothpaste + mouthrinse, daily

Number of participants with more severe DLs (severity of DLs) · Orthodontic patients of any age with fixed braces (new DLs assessed at debond)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

1400/250 ppm F (amine F/SnF2) toothpaste + mouthrinse, daily vs 1400/250 ppm F (NaF) toothpaste + mouthrinse, daily

Adverse effects · Orthodontic patients of any age with fixed braces (new DLs assessed at debond)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

1400/250 ppm F (amine F/SnF2) toothpaste + mouthrinse, daily vs 1400/250 ppm F (NaF) toothpaste + mouthrinse, daily

Gingival bleeding (various bleeding indices) · Orthodontic patients of any age with fixed braces (new DLs assessed at debond)

It is very uncertain whether 1400/250 ppm F (amine F/SnF2) toothpaste + mouthrinse, daily changes gingival bleeding index (mean change from baseline) compared with 1400/250 ppm F (NaF) toothpaste + mouthrinse, daily (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review