Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

2,890 questions · 3,917 findings · 272 reviews · Oral Health

No studies found 429 · 11%GRADE not reported 2,657 · 67.8%Very low 512 · 13.1%Low 219 · 5.6%Moderate 80 · 2%High 20 · 0.5%

Cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) preoperative evaluation vs Conventional periapical radiography

Healing - 1 year · People requiring retreatment of periapical lesions (failed root canal therapy)

It is very uncertain whether cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) preoperative evaluation changes healing - 1 year compared with conventional periapical radiography (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

AI algorithms (predominantly CNN/deep learning) as index test vs Dental expert / visual-tactile clinical assessment (reference standard)

Sensitivity · Patients undergoing dental caries detection on dental images (teeth/surfaces across imaging modalities)

AI algorithms have high pooled sensitivity (0.85) for detecting dental caries; ungraded, with very high heterogeneity (I2>95%) and evidence of publication bias.

1 finding from 1 review

AI algorithms (predominantly CNN/deep learning) as index test vs Dental expert / visual-tactile clinical assessment (reference standard)

Specificity · Patients undergoing dental caries detection on dental images (teeth/surfaces across imaging modalities)

AI algorithms have high pooled specificity (0.90) for detecting dental caries; ungraded, with very high heterogeneity (I2>95%).

1 finding from 1 review

AI algorithms (predominantly CNN/deep learning) as index test vs Dental expert / visual-tactile clinical assessment (reference standard)

Area under the summary ROC curve · Patients undergoing dental caries detection on dental images (teeth/surfaces across imaging modalities)

The area under the summary ROC curve for AI caries detection is 0.86, indicating high overall diagnostic accuracy; ungraded.

1 finding from 1 review

AI algorithms (predominantly CNN/deep learning) as index test vs Dental expert / visual-tactile clinical assessment (reference standard)

Positive likelihood ratio · Patients undergoing dental caries detection on dental images (teeth/surfaces across imaging modalities)

A positive AI test raises caries probability substantially (LR+ 10.44; positive post-test probability 79%); ungraded.

1 finding from 1 review

AI algorithms (predominantly CNN/deep learning) as index test vs Dental expert / visual-tactile clinical assessment (reference standard)

Log diagnostic odds ratio · Patients undergoing dental caries detection on dental images (teeth/surfaces across imaging modalities)

AI algorithms show strong pooled discriminative accuracy for dental caries (log DOR 4.37; DOR 70.9); ungraded.

1 finding from 1 review

AI algorithms (predominantly CNN/deep learning) as index test vs Dental expert / visual-tactile clinical assessment (reference standard)

Negative likelihood ratio · Patients undergoing dental caries detection on dental images (teeth/surfaces across imaging modalities)

A negative AI test lowers caries probability substantially (LR- 0.17; negative post-test probability 6%); ungraded.

1 finding from 1 review

Ibuprofen taken pre-emptively (about 1 hour before treatment) vs Ibuprofen taken post-treatment

Rescue analgesia · People undergoing orthodontic treatment (any age; 9 to 34 years in included studies)

Ibuprofen taken pre-emptively (about 1 hour before treatment) showed no clear difference in rescue analgesia compared with ibuprofen taken post-treatment; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Ibuprofen taken pre-emptively (about 1 hour before treatment) vs Ibuprofen taken post-treatment

Patient‐reported pain intensity or pain relief (VAS, NRS or categorical scale) · People undergoing orthodontic treatment (any age; 9 to 34 years in included studies)

It is very uncertain whether ibuprofen taken pre-emptively (about 1 hour before treatment) changes pain intensity (VAS 0-100 mm) compared with ibuprofen taken post-treatment (very low certainty).

3 findings from 1 review

Gum chewing (sugar-free) vs Pooled controls: no gum, placebo/control gum, probiotic, or fluoride varnish

Streptococcus mutans load in the oral cavity (saliva and/or dental plaque) · Adults and children (general population)

In a sensitivity analysis assuming a 0.95 baseline-to-endpoint correlation for the sugar-free gum arm, the effect remained significant (SMD -0.55, 95% CI -0.80 to -0.30; 13 trials, I2 73%); certainty not formally graded.

2 findings from 1 review

Adhesive precoated (APC) flash-free brackets (minimal excess adhesive) vs Conventional brackets

White spot lesions assessed by laser fluorescence (DIAGNOdent) · Patients undergoing fixed orthodontic (fixed appliance) treatment (adolescents and adults, ages 12 to 35)

Two studies found adhesive flash-free brackets did not clinically reduce enamel demineralization or white spot lesions versus conventional brackets, though they reduced pathogenic bacteria (ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Dental examinations at three-month intervals and preventive treatments vs usual care

MRONJ (incidence proportion) · Men with metastatic prostate cancer receiving intravenous zoledronic acid (at risk of MRONJ)

It is very uncertain whether dental examinations at three-month intervals and preventive treatments changes MRONJ (incidence proportion) compared with standard care (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Dental examinations at three-month intervals and preventive treatments vs usual care

MRONJ (incidence rate: cases per patient-year) · Men with metastatic prostate cancer receiving intravenous zoledronic acid (at risk of MRONJ)

It is very uncertain whether dental examinations at three-month intervals and preventive treatments changes MRONJ (incidence rate: cases per patient-year) compared with standard care (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

ART sealant using high-viscosity glass ionomer (press-finger technique) vs No comparator

Retention of sealant (complete or partial retention) · Pits and fissures of permanent (posterior) teeth

High-viscosity glass-ionomer ART sealants showed 4-year retention of 68% (95% CI 61-75%); evidence ungraded.

6 findings from 1 review
Show 3 more findings

ART sealant using high-viscosity glass ionomer (press-finger technique) vs No comparator

Caries-free sealed pits and fissures · Pits and fissures of permanent (posterior) teeth

Pits and fissures sealed with high-viscosity glass-ionomer ART sealants remained dentine lesion-free in 100% (95% CI 99-100%) at 1-year; evidence ungraded.

6 findings from 1 review
Show 3 more findings

Criteria-based screening (dentist refers using pre-established criteria) vs Traditional screening

Dental attendance · primary or secondary school pupils

It is very uncertain whether criteria-based screening (dentist refers using pre-established… changes dental attendance compared with traditional screening (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review