What do systematic reviews say?

Alvogyl vs Zinc oxide and eugenol (ZOE)

Alvogyl led to lower time to initial pain relief (minutes) compared with zinc oxide eugenol; GRADE not reported.

• Local interventions for the management of alveolar osteitis (dry socket) 2022 · Cochrane All outcomes

  Initial pain relief
  MD -17.64 [-18.76, -16.52]
  1 study · 78 participants
  GRADE not reported

Enamel caries in primary dentition (at 5 years) vs Caries-free primary dentition

Enamel caries in the primary dentition is associated with about 1.6 times higher odds of dentinal caries in permanent teeth (single study; not GRADE-rated).

• Does Early Childhood Caries Increase Caries Development among School Children and Adolescents? A Systematic Review and… 2022 All outcomes

  7-year follow-up · Cohort study, Norway (Saethre-Sundli 2020) · Enamel caries in primary dentition
  OR 1.6 [1.2, 2.0]
  1 study · 3282 participants
  GRADE not reported

Oral cytology (e.g. OralCDx brush biopsy, CytID) vs Reference standard: examination and clinical evaluation by a physician/clinician with specialist knowledge or training (long-term follow-up accepted for those screened negative)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Clinical assessment for the detection of oral cavity cancer and potentially malignant disorders in apparently healthy… 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes
  Oral cytology (e.g. brush biopsy) was added to the list of eligible index tests in this update; no eligible studies evaluated it (evidence gap).
  0 studies
  No studies found

High snack consumption vs Low snack consumption

High snack consumption was associated with higher odds of severe early childhood caries.

• Oral Health of Children and Adolescents in the United Arab Emirates: A Systematic Review of the Past Decade. 2021 All outcomes

  Overall
  OR 1.80 [1.26, 2.58]
  1 study · 1036 participants
  GRADE not reported

High snack consumption vs Low snack consumption

High snack consumption was associated with higher mean DMFT.

• Oral Health of Children and Adolescents in the United Arab Emirates: A Systematic Review of the Past Decade. 2021 All outcomes

  Overall
  ARR 1.46 [1.26, 1.70]
  1 study · 1036 participants
  GRADE not reported

COE with blood/salivary (biomarker) analysis vs Reference standard: examination and clinical evaluation by a physician/clinician with specialist knowledge or training (long-term follow-up accepted for those screened negative)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Clinical assessment for the detection of oral cavity cancer and potentially malignant disorders in apparently healthy… 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes
  There were no eligible studies evaluating blood or salivary sample analysis (which tests for the presence of biomarkers for OPMD and OSCC).
  0 studies
  No studies found

Remote screening of the oral cavity (mobile application/telemedicine) vs Reference standard: examination and clinical evaluation by a physician/clinician with specialist knowledge or training (long-term follow-up accepted for those screened negative)

• Clinical assessment for the detection of oral cavity cancer and potentially malignant disorders in apparently healthy… 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes
  Summary of findings 4 (no pooled analysis): specificity 0.99 (95% CI 0.99 to 1.00), 1.00 (95% CI 0.91 to 1.00), and 0.72 (95% CI 0.63 to 0.80) across the 3 studies. Certainty VERY LOW.
  3 studies · 3600 participants
  Very low

Remote screening of the oral cavity (mobile application/telemedicine) vs Reference standard: examination and clinical evaluation by a physician/clinician with specialist knowledge or training (long-term follow-up accepted for those screened negative)

• Clinical assessment for the detection of oral cavity cancer and potentially malignant disorders in apparently healthy… 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes
  Summary of findings 4 (no pooled analysis): sensitivity 0.85 (95% CI 0.81 to 0.88), 0.82 (95% CI 0.57 to 0.96), and 0.94 (95% CI 0.70 to 1.00) across the 3 studies. Prevalence 12.2% to 30.9%. Certainty VERY LOW.
  3 studies · 3600 participants
  Very low

Higher consumption of snacks / sugar / soft drinks vs Lower consumption

Higher snacking and soft-drink/sugar consumption were associated with more caries in most studies, though one study found no association with sweet-consumption frequency (narrative synthesis; not GRADE-rated).

• Oral Health of Children and Adolescents in the United Arab Emirates: A Systematic Review of the Past Decade. 2021 All outcomes

  UAE; schools (Ajman, Sharjah), nurseries (Ras Al Khaimah)
  Soft drink consumption (Khadri et al.: 0.31, 95% CI 0.14-0.47) and a high extent of snacking (Hashim et al.: high vs low snack level aRR 1.46, 95% CI 1.26-1.70; snacking >=3x vs once daily aRR 1.25, 1.00-1.57) were…
  Studies not reported
  GRADE not reported

COE with light-based detection (e.g. ViziLite Plus, Microlux/DL, VELscope, Identafi 3000) vs Reference standard: examination and clinical evaluation by a physician/clinician with specialist knowledge or training (long-term follow-up accepted for those screened negative)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Clinical assessment for the detection of oral cavity cancer and potentially malignant disorders in apparently healthy… 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes
  There were no eligible studies evaluating light-based detection.
  0 studies
  No studies found

High snack consumption vs Low snack consumption

High snack consumption was associated with a higher mean plaque score.

• Oral Health of Children and Adolescents in the United Arab Emirates: A Systematic Review of the Past Decade. 2021 All outcomes

  Overall
  Adjusted difference 0.13 [0.02, 0.24]
  1 study · 1036 participants
  GRADE not reported

Higher paternal education vs Lower paternal education

Higher paternal education was associated with lower DMFT.

• Oral Health of Children and Adolescents in the United Arab Emirates: A Systematic Review of the Past Decade. 2021 All outcomes

  Overall
  Regression coefficient -0.35 [-0.53, -0.17]
  1 study · 803 participants
  GRADE not reported

COE with vital rinsing (toluidine blue/tolonium chloride) vs Reference standard: examination and clinical evaluation by a physician/clinician with specialist knowledge or training (long-term follow-up accepted for those screened negative)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Clinical assessment for the detection of oral cavity cancer and potentially malignant disorders in apparently healthy… 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes
  No eligible study evaluated COE with vital rinse as a stand-alone screen against the reference standard in this version.
  0 studies
  No studies found

Highest plaque category vs Lowest plaque category

The highest plaque category was associated with higher dental caries.

• Oral Health of Children and Adolescents in the United Arab Emirates: A Systematic Review of the Past Decade. 2021 All outcomes

  Highest versus lowest plaque category
  ARR 4.77 [3.67, 6.19]
  1 study · 1036 participants
  GRADE not reported

Mouth self-examination (MSE) vs Reference standard: examination and clinical evaluation by a physician/clinician with specialist knowledge or training (long-term follow-up accepted for those screened negative)

• Clinical assessment for the detection of oral cavity cancer and potentially malignant disorders in apparently healthy… 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes
  Summary of findings 2 (no pooled analysis): specificity 1.00 (95% CI 1.00 to 1.00), 0.95 (95% CI 0.88 to 0.99), 0.44 (95% CI 0.20 to 0.70), and 0.54 (95% CI 0.37 to 0.69) across the 4 studies. Certainty VERY LOW.
  4 studies · 35059 participants
  Very low

Visual examination (VE) vs Reference standard: examination and clinical evaluation by a physician/clinician with specialist knowledge or training (long-term follow-up accepted for those screened negative)

• Clinical assessment for the detection of oral cavity cancer and potentially malignant disorders in apparently healthy… 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes
  Summary of findings 1 (no pooled analysis): for the 7 low-prevalence studies specificity ranged from 0.94 (95% CI 0.88 to 0.97) to 0.99 (95% CI 0.98 to 1.00); for the 3 higher-prevalence studies specificity ranged from…
  10 studies · 25568 participants
  Low

Electrical conductance devices (electronic caries monitor (ECM) and/or CarieScan Pro), used as an adjunct to clinical oral examination vs Reference standard: histology or enhanced visual examination (with or without radiographs)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• 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)
  No eligible studies. 'No studies reported the inclusion of a low prevalence (0% to 14%) of d3/D3 of tooth surfaces'; all included studies reported d3/D3 prevalence of 15% or above, so the planned low-prevalence…
  0 studies
  No studies found

Mouth self-examination (MSE) vs Reference standard: examination and clinical evaluation by a physician/clinician with specialist knowledge or training (long-term follow-up accepted for those screened negative)

• Clinical assessment for the detection of oral cavity cancer and potentially malignant disorders in apparently healthy… 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes
  Summary of findings 2 (no pooled analysis): sensitivity 0.18 (95% CI 0.13 to 0.24), 0.09 (95% CI 0.04 to 0.15), 0.43 (95% CI 0.24 to 0.63), and 0.33 (95% CI 0.10 to 0.65) across the 4 studies. Prevalence 0.6% to 63.6%.…
  4 studies · 35059 participants
  Very low

Visual examination (VE) vs Reference standard: examination and clinical evaluation by a physician/clinician with specialist knowledge or training (long-term follow-up accepted for those screened negative)

• Clinical assessment for the detection of oral cavity cancer and potentially malignant disorders in apparently healthy… 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes
  Summary of findings 1 (no pooled analysis): for the 7 studies with low prevalence (<=10%) sensitivity ranged from 0.50 (95% CI 0.07 to 0.93) to 0.99 (95% CI 0.97 to 1.00); for the 3 higher-prevalence studies…
  10 studies · 25568 participants
  Low

AG genotype of ENAM rs1264848 vs AA genotype of ENAM rs1264848

No significant association between AG genotype vs AA genotype of ENAM rs1264848 and dental caries susceptibility (AG vs AA model: OR 1.21, 95% CI 0.88-1.65); certainty not graded.

• Association of LTF, ENAM, and AMELX polymorphisms with dental caries susceptibility: a meta-analysis. 2020 All outcomes

  Case-control genetic association studies (multiple countries) · Overall
  OR 1.21 [0.88, 1.65]
  5 studies · 1534 participants
  GRADE not reported
• Association of LTF, ENAM, and AMELX polymorphisms with dental caries susceptibility: a meta-analysis. 2020 All outcomes

  Case-control genetic association studies (multiple countries) · Ethnicity: Mixed
  OR 1.73 [0.77, 3.90]
  1 study
  GRADE not reported
• Association of LTF, ENAM, and AMELX polymorphisms with dental caries susceptibility: a meta-analysis. 2020 All outcomes

  Case-control genetic association studies (multiple countries) · Control group: Low caries
  OR 1.57 [0.97, 2.53]
  2 studies
  GRADE not reported