evidencegaps
Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

75 questions · 100 findings · 25 reviews · Dental caries

Sort:Best matchNewestHighest certaintyDownload CSV
No studies found 16 · 16%GRADE not reported 70 · 70%Very low 7 · 7%Low 6 · 6%Moderate 1 · 1%High 0 · 0%

Bio-active restorative materials vs Any conventional restorative material

Treatment failure (planned; no eligible studies) · Children with carious primary teeth after vital or non-vital pulp therapy

No eligible studies were found evaluating bio-active restorative materials for restoring carious primary teeth after pulp therapy.

1 finding from 1 review

Dental caries assessment (WHO/clinical diagnostic criteria; caries = DMFT>0) vs None (descriptive prevalence meta-analysis)

Dental caries prevalence · General Pakistani population (all ages and both sexes; predominantly children and adolescents)

In permanent dentition, the pooled prevalence of dental caries was 57.2% (95% CI 26.3 to 85.3); ungraded.

10 findings from 1 review
Show 7 more findings

Ion-releasing restorations (IRR): RMGIC, HVGIC, GIC, compomer/PMRC, giomer vs Composite resin (CR), including bulk-fill composite

Proper surface staining · Children receiving dental restorations (aged 4-11 years; primary teeth; Class I/II/V cavities)

No significant difference between IRR and CR in surface staining (moderate certainty; downgraded for inconsistency).

1 finding from 1 review

Silver diamine fluoride (SDF) vs Other methods (pooled: ART/glass ionomer cement, nano-silver fluoride, sodium fluoride varnish, placebo)

Adverse effects (tooth staining and other side effects) · Children and adults with active dental caries (aged 1-50; mostly preschool/school children with primary dentition)

SDF commonly causes black staining of arrested lesions; only mild, transient adverse events were reported, with no major adverse events (ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

38% SDF (indirect pulp capping) vs Resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC)

Restoration color, marginal staining and luster (esthetics) · Children with deep occlusal caries in young permanent first molars (indirect pulp capping)

RMGIC gave significantly better restoration esthetics than SDF, which caused black staining (p=0.03; ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Silver diamine fluoride (SDF) vs Not applicable (single-arm safety outcome)

Adverse events: black staining of arrested lesions · Children and older adults treated with SDF for carious lesions

Black staining of arrested lesions was the main adverse event of SDF (reported by seven reviews); it was generally acceptable to patients (ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Resin-modified glass ionomer (Vitremer) vs Amalgam restoration

Marginal integrity, wear, surface texture, staining and secondary caries (Ryge criteria) at 6-12 months · Children aged 12 years or younger with tooth decay involving at least one tooth in the primary dentition, symptomatic or symptom free
1 finding from 1 review
  • Dental fillings for the treatment of caries in the primary dentition 2009 · Cochrane All outcomes
    6-12 months
    Marginal integrity, wear, surface texture, axial contour, staining and secondary caries (Ryge criteria) at 6 and 12 months: odds ratios not estimable - no events recorded, implying equal performance of the two materials.
    1 study · 60 participants
    GRADE not reported

Xylitol sucking tablets (1 g/day) vs no treatment

Number of infants with a caries increment · Infants/young children (primary teeth; baseline about 1 to 3 years)

Xylitol sucking tablets (1 g/day) showed no clear difference in number of infants with a caries increment compared with no treatment; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Xylitol candy (7.5 g/day) vs Control (sorbitol) candy

Caries increment (dmfs, primary and permanent teeth combined) · Children (mixed dentition; baseline about 8 years)
1 finding from 1 review

Xylitol chewing gum vs No treatment or non-cariogenic control

Outcome not reported · Children and adults

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

2.26% ammonium bifluoride (one-time) vs Control (details reported as unavailable)

New coronal caries in permanent first molars (caries prevention) · Children with dental caries in permanent (first) molars

One-time ammonium bifluoride gave a 56% prevented fraction, similar to SDF (57%) (single study; ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Prefabricated zirconia crowns (e.g., NuSmile, Zirkiz, Kinder Krown) vs Other crowns/restorations (stainless steel crowns, pre-veneered SSC, resin composite strip crowns, glass-fiber composite crowns)

Recurrent caries (crowns free of recurrent caries) · Children with primary (deciduous) teeth requiring full-coverage crown restoration

Recurrent caries did not differ between zirconia crowns and other restorations at 6 months (RR 1.00, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.03; 2 studies; not GRADE-rated).

2 findings from 1 review