Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

1,338 questions · 2,104 findings · 136 reviews · Dental caries

No studies found 159 · 7.6%GRADE not reported 1,657 · 78.8%Very low 138 · 6.6%Low 111 · 5.3%Moderate 36 · 1.7%High 3 · 0.1%

CarieScan Pro device vs Reference standard (histology, excavation, or enhanced visual examination)

Sensitivity · Children, adolescents, or adults presenting asymptomatically or suspected of early enamel caries (in vivo), or extracted teeth of…
1 finding from 1 review
  • Electrical conductance for the detection of dental caries 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes
    Up to 3 months between index test and reference standard (in vivo studies)
    CarieScan Pro (3 studies, 244 tooth surfaces): sensitivity ranged from 0.55 to 0.91. No evidence of a difference in accuracy by device type (Chi2=0.05, df=1, P=0.82).
    3 studies
    GRADE not reported

CarieScan Pro device vs Reference standard (histology, excavation, or enhanced visual examination)

Specificity · Children, adolescents, or adults presenting asymptomatically or suspected of early enamel caries (in vivo), or extracted teeth of…
1 finding from 1 review

High dental-caries prevalence vs Not applicable

Oral health-related quality of life · people aged 60 years and older living in the community

The review reported higher OHRQoL in the low than high dental-caries-prevalence category.

1 finding from 1 review

All dental health care expenditure strata vs No comparator

Caries experience (mean DMFT) · 12-year-old children across European countries (national/regional epidemiological surveys, 2011-2022)

The overall pooled mean DMFT was 2.10 across all dental health care expenditure strata.

1 finding from 1 review

Dental fillings (restorations) vs Dental extractions

Outcome not reported · Children aged 12 years or younger with tooth decay involving at least one tooth in the primary dentition, symptomatic or symptom free

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Oral health education only (verbal, written, or audio-visual education) delivered by non-dental health workers vs control (no intervention/usual care/isotonic exercise)

Caries experience · Children (mean age newborn to ~5.2 years) and their parents/carers

Oral-health-education-only interventions showed at most a marginal effect on tooth-level caries (dmft SMD -0.11, 95% CI -0.21 to -0.00; 2 studies; not GRADE-rated).

1 finding from 1 review

Oral health education only (verbal, written, or audio-visual education) delivered by non-dental health workers vs control (no intervention/usual care/isotonic exercise)

Caries experience at the surface level (dmfs/defs) · Children (mean age newborn to ~5.2 years) and their parents/carers

Oral-health-education-only interventions did not show a statistically significant effect on surface-level caries (dmfs SMD -0.20, 95% CI -0.43 to 0.03; 2 studies; not GRADE-rated).

1 finding from 1 review

Behaviour change / oral health promotion interventions delivered by non-dental professionals and health workers (nurses, midwives, health visitors, community health workers) vs control (no intervention/usual care/isotonic exercise)

Caries experience at the surface level (dmfs/defs) · Children (mean age newborn to ~5.2 years) and their parents/carers

Behaviour change interventions delivered by non-dental health workers produced a small, statistically significant reduction in caries experience at the surface level (dmfs SMD -0.15, 95% CI -0.25 to -0.04; 12 studies); the review judged the overall evidence to be of low quality (not GRADE-rated).

1 finding from 1 review

Behaviour change / oral health promotion interventions delivered by non-dental professionals and health workers (nurses, midwives, health visitors, community health workers) vs control (no intervention/usual care/isotonic exercise)

Caries experience · Children (mean age newborn to ~5.2 years) and their parents/carers

Behaviour change interventions delivered by non-dental health workers produced a small-to-moderate, statistically significant reduction in caries experience at the tooth level (dmft SMD -0.34, 95% CI -0.54 to -0.13; 6 studies); the review judged the overall evidence to be of low quality (not GRADE-rated).

1 finding from 1 review

Comprehensive oral health intervention (oral health education plus additional support: motivational interviewing, toothbrush/toothpaste provision, community engagement, and/or fluoride varnish/sealant application) delivered by non-dental health workers vs control (no intervention/usual care/isotonic exercise)

Caries experience at the surface level (dmfs/defs) · Children (mean age newborn to ~5.2 years) and their parents/carers

Comprehensive interventions produced a small, statistically significant reduction in surface-level caries (dmfs SMD -0.14, 95% CI -0.26 to -0.02; 10 studies; not GRADE-rated).

1 finding from 1 review

Comprehensive oral health intervention (oral health education plus additional support: motivational interviewing, toothbrush/toothpaste provision, community engagement, and/or fluoride varnish/sealant application) delivered by non-dental health workers vs control (no intervention/usual care/isotonic exercise)

Caries experience · Children (mean age newborn to ~5.2 years) and their parents/carers

Comprehensive interventions produced a statistically significant reduction in tooth-level caries (dmft SMD -0.47, 95% CI -0.84 to -0.10; 4 studies; not GRADE-rated), though heterogeneity was very high.

1 finding from 1 review

Quantitative light-induced fluorescence (QLF) vs Reference standard

detection of proximal caries · human primary or permanent teeth with dental caries lesions

QLF had pooled sensitivity of 0.83 and specificity of 0.74 for proximal caries (all dentitions, in vitro).

4 findings from 1 review
Show 1 more finding

Quantitative light-induced fluorescence (QLF) vs Reference standard

detection of occlusal caries · human primary or permanent teeth with dental caries lesions

QLF had pooled sensitivity of 0.86 and specificity of 0.80 for occlusal caries (permanent dentition, in vivo).

2 findings from 1 review

Fluoride mouthrinse (0.05-0.32% sodium fluoride or amine fluoride) added to daily fluoride toothpaste vs Control: fluoride toothpaste alone, placebo mouthrinse + toothpaste, or non-fluoride (chlorhexidine) mouthrinse + toothpaste

Incidence of proximal (interdental) caries lesions from bitewing radiographs · Orthodontic patients (any age) undergoing orthodontic treatment (mostly fixed appliances)

Only one included study assessed proximal caries incidence from bitewing radiographs; it was not included in the meta-analysis and no pooled estimate is available (ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Analogue (conventional) radiographs vs Reference standard (histology, excavation, or enhanced visual examination)

Sensitivity for detection and diagnosis of early (enamel) caries · Asymptomatic children, adolescents, or adults presenting for clinical examination (in vivo studies), or extracted teeth of children or…
1 finding from 1 review

Radiographic imaging methods (any: analogue radiographs, digital radiographs, or CBCT) vs Reference standard (histology, excavation, or enhanced visual examination)

Sensitivity for detection and diagnosis of early (enamel) caries · Asymptomatic children, adolescents, or adults presenting for clinical examination (in vivo studies), or extracted teeth of children or…
17 findings from 1 review
Show 14 more findings

Cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) vs Reference standard (histology, excavation, or enhanced visual examination)

Specificity for detection and diagnosis of early (enamel) caries · Asymptomatic children, adolescents, or adults presenting for clinical examination (in vivo studies), or extracted teeth of children or…
3 findings from 1 review

Radiographic imaging methods (any: analogue radiographs, digital radiographs, or CBCT) vs Reference standard (histology, excavation, or enhanced visual examination)

Specificity for detection and diagnosis of early (enamel) caries · Asymptomatic children, adolescents, or adults presenting for clinical examination (in vivo studies), or extracted teeth of children or…
17 findings from 1 review
Show 14 more findings

Analogue (conventional) radiographs vs Digital radiographs (direct within-person / paired comparison); reference standard: histology, excavation, or enhanced visual examination

Specificity for detection and diagnosis of early (enamel) caries · Asymptomatic children, adolescents, or adults presenting for clinical examination (in vivo studies), or extracted teeth of children or…
2 findings from 1 review

Analogue (conventional) radiographs vs Reference standard (histology, excavation, or enhanced visual examination)

Specificity for detection and diagnosis of early (enamel) caries · Asymptomatic children, adolescents, or adults presenting for clinical examination (in vivo studies), or extracted teeth of children or…
1 finding from 1 review