Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

781 questions · 1,089 findings · 92 reviews · Dental caries

No studies found 77 · 7.1%GRADE not reported 781 · 71.7%Very low 86 · 7.9%Low 97 · 8.9%Moderate 38 · 3.5%High 10 · 0.9%

Aesthetic (resin-veneered) crowns vs Conventional metal (stainless steel) crowns

Occlusion · Children aged 12 years or younger with tooth decay involving at least one tooth in the primary dentition, symptomatic or symptom free

Aesthetic (resin-veneered) crowns led to lower occlusion at 6 months compared with conventional metal (stainless steel) crowns; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Compomer (Dyract) vs Amalgam (Tytin)

Cervical gaps on bitewing X-rays at 24 months · Children aged 12 years or younger with tooth decay involving at least one tooth in the primary dentition, symptomatic or symptom free

Compomer (Dyract) showed no clear difference in cervical gaps on bitewing X-rays at 24 months compared with amalgam (Tytin); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Aesthetic (resin-veneered) crowns vs Conventional metal (stainless steel) crowns

Proximal contact at 6 months · Children aged 12 years or younger with tooth decay involving at least one tooth in the primary dentition, symptomatic or symptom free

Aesthetic (resin-veneered) crowns led to lower proximal contact at 6 months compared with conventional metal (stainless steel) crowns; GRADE not reported.

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

Aesthetic (resin-veneered) crowns vs Conventional metal (stainless steel) crowns

Marginal integrity of restoration · Children aged 12 years or younger with tooth decay involving at least one tooth in the primary dentition, symptomatic or symptom free

Aesthetic (resin-veneered) crowns led to lower marginal integrity at 6 months compared with conventional metal (stainless steel) crowns; GRADE not reported.

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
  • 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

Compomer (Dyract) vs Amalgam (Tytin)

Marginal integrity (occlusal) failures at 24 months · Children aged 12 years or younger with tooth decay involving at least one tooth in the primary dentition, symptomatic or symptom free

Compomer (Dyract) showed no clear difference in marginal integrity (occlusal) failures at 24 months compared with amalgam (Tytin); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Compomer (Dyract) vs Amalgam (Tytin)

Radiolucencies on bitewing X-rays at 24 months · Children aged 12 years or younger with tooth decay involving at least one tooth in the primary dentition, symptomatic or symptom free

Compomer (Dyract) showed no clear difference in radiolucencies on bitewing X-rays at 24 months compared with amalgam (Tytin); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Dental fillings (restorations) vs No treatment

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

Resin-modified glass ionomer (Vitremer) vs Amalgam restoration

Replacement (failure) of Class II restoration at 12 months · Children aged 12 years or younger with tooth decay involving at least one tooth in the primary dentition, symptomatic or symptom free

Resin-modified glass ionomer (Vitremer) showed no clear difference in replacement (failure) of Class II restoration at 12 months compared with amalgam; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Aesthetic (resin-veneered) crowns vs Conventional metal (stainless steel) crowns

Gingival health at 6 months · Children aged 12 years or younger with tooth decay involving at least one tooth in the primary dentition, symptomatic or symptom free

Aesthetic (resin-veneered) crowns showed no clear difference in gingival health at 6 months compared with conventional metal (stainless steel) crowns; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Fluoride mouthrinse (0.05-0.32% sodium fluoride or amine fluoride) added to daily fluoride toothpaste vs Fluoride mouthrinse

Caries increment on permanent tooth surfaces (D(M)FS), prevented fraction · Children and adolescents aged 16 years or less
1 finding from 1 review

Fluoride mouthrinse (0.05-0.32% sodium fluoride or amine fluoride) added to daily fluoride toothpaste vs Fluoride mouthrinse

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

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

1 finding from 1 review

Fluoride gel combined with fluoride mouthrinse vs Fluoride gel

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

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

1 finding from 1 review

Fluoride mouthrinse, gel or varnish combined with fluoride toothpaste (any combined regimen) vs Fluoride toothpaste alone

Adverse effects (tooth staining and other side effects) · Children and adolescents aged 16 years or less
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

Fluoride mouthrinse, gel or varnish combined with fluoride toothpaste (any combined regimen) vs Fluoride toothpaste alone

Adverse effects: dental fluorosis · Children and adolescents aged 16 years or less

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review