Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

88 questions · 99 findings · 17 reviews

No studies found 3 · 3%GRADE not reported 76 · 76.8%Very low 3 · 3%Low 10 · 10.1%Moderate 7 · 7.1%High 0 · 0%

Self-assembling peptide P11-4 vs Fluoride varnish

Remineralization / reduction in lesion severity (change in QLF, laser fluorescence, or lesion area) · Patients with white spot lesions / early caries lesions (WSLs/ECLs), including orthodontic and non-orthodontic lesions, active caries…

Self-assembling peptide P11-4 did not differ significantly from fluoride varnish (SMD -0.31, 95% CI -0.71 to 0.09); certainty of evidence not assessed (no GRADE).

1 finding from 1 review

Self-assembling peptide P11-4 vs CPP-ACP

Remineralization / reduction in lesion severity (change in QLF, laser fluorescence, or lesion area) · Patients with white spot lesions / early caries lesions (WSLs/ECLs), including orthodontic and non-orthodontic lesions, active caries…

Self-assembling peptide P11-4 did not differ significantly from CPP-ACP (SMD -0.38, 95% CI -0.87 to 0.11; indirect evidence only); certainty of evidence not assessed (no GRADE).

1 finding from 1 review

CPP-ACP vs CPP-ACFP

Remineralization / reduction in lesion severity (change in QLF, laser fluorescence, or lesion area) · Patients with white spot lesions / early caries lesions (WSLs/ECLs), including orthodontic and non-orthodontic lesions, active caries…

CPP-ACP did not differ significantly from CPP-ACFP (SMD 0.25, 95% CI -0.24 to 0.73); certainty of evidence not assessed (no GRADE).

1 finding from 1 review

Self-assembling peptide P11-4 vs CPP-ACFP

Remineralization / reduction in lesion severity (change in QLF, laser fluorescence, or lesion area) · Patients with white spot lesions / early caries lesions (WSLs/ECLs), including orthodontic and non-orthodontic lesions, active caries…

Self-assembling peptide P11-4 did not differ significantly from CPP-ACFP (SMD -0.13, 95% CI -0.68 to 0.42); certainty of evidence not assessed (no GRADE).

1 finding from 1 review

SDF applied biannually (every 6 months) vs Other non/minimally-invasive treatment (ART or 5% NaF varnish)

Caries arrest · Children (age 1-10 years) with active cavitated dentin caries lesions in primary molars

Biannual SDF application significantly arrested caries (pooled ES 0.39, 95% CI 0.19-0.60; ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

38% SDF (applied every 6 or 12 months) vs 12% SDF solution (applied annually)

Caries arrest · Children (age 1-10 years) with active cavitated dentin caries lesions in primary molars

38% SDF arrested more caries than 12% SDF (pooled ES 0.37, 95% CI 0.27-0.47; single study; ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Silver diamine fluoride (SDF; 30% or 38%) vs No treatment or another non-invasive/minimally-invasive treatment (ART, sodium fluoride or silver-based varnish, or 12% SDF)

Caries arrest · Children (age 1-10 years) with active cavitated dentin caries lesions in primary molars

SDF is effective in arresting caries progression in cavitated primary molars overall (pooled ES 0.33, 95% CI 0.26-0.40; ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

30% silver diamine fluoride vs Atraumatic restorative treatment (ART)

Patient discomfort during treatment (anxiety scale) · Children (age 1-10 years) with active cavitated dentin caries lesions in primary molars

One study found no significant difference in patient discomfort between SDF and ART (p = 0.15; ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Silver diamine fluoride (SDF; 30% or 38%) vs Atraumatic restorative treatment (ART)

Caries arrest · Children (age 1-10 years) with active cavitated dentin caries lesions in primary molars

SDF was not significantly better than ART at arresting caries (pooled ES 0.05, 95% CI -0.42 to 0.51; ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

SDF applied once (single application, no re-application) vs Other non/minimally-invasive treatment (ART or silver-fluoride varnish)

Caries arrest · Children (age 1-10 years) with active cavitated dentin caries lesions in primary molars

A single (one-time) SDF application did not significantly arrest caries (pooled ES -0.09, 95% CI -0.48 to 0.29; ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Silver diamine fluoride (SDF >=30%, i.e. 30% or 38%), applied annually or biannually vs No treatment or another non-invasive/minimally-invasive treatment (ART, sodium fluoride or silver-based varnish, or 12% SDF)

Caries arrest · Children (age 1-10 years) with active cavitated dentin caries lesions in primary molars

The pooled caries arrest rate with SDF (>=30%, applied annually/biannually) was 51.62% (622/1205 lesions arrested) at >=12 months follow-up.

1 finding from 1 review

Silver diamine fluoride (SDF; 30% or 38%) vs Fluoride varnish

Arrest of dentine caries · Preschool children with active dentine caries in primary teeth (mean age 3.4-4.0 years)

Silver diamine fluoride was about 2.5 times more likely than sodium fluoride to arrest dentine caries surfaces at 18 months (pooled OR 2.51, 95% CI 1.25 to 5.10; 2 RCTs), although between-study heterogeneity was high (I2=90.3%); certainty of evidence was not formally graded.

2 findings from 1 review

Nano-silver fluoride vs Not specified

Arrest of dentine caries · Children with active dentine caries

One randomised trial found nano-silver fluoride arrested dentine caries without the black staining seen with silver diamine fluoride; ungraded.

1 finding from 1 review

30% silver diamine fluoride vs Not specified

Arrest of dentine caries · Children with active dentine caries in primary teeth

One study reported 30% silver diamine fluoride effectively arrested dentine caries in primary teeth; ungraded.

1 finding from 1 review

12% silver diamine fluoride (SDF), single (one-off) application vs Not specified

Arrest of dentine caries · Children with active dentine caries

One trial found a single application of 12% silver diamine fluoride did not arrest dentine caries; ungraded.

1 finding from 1 review

Light-cured resin-modified glass ionomer cement vs Glass ionomer cement (GIC)

Secondary caries · Patients requiring dental restoration; permanent teeth

Over 1 year in permanent teeth, secondary caries did not differ significantly between RMGIC and GIC (RR 1.82, 95% CI 0.45-7.28; low certainty).

2 findings from 1 review

Composite resin vs Glass ionomer cement (GIC)

Secondary caries · Patients requiring dental restoration; permanent teeth

Over 1 year in permanent teeth, resin composite showed no statistically significant difference in secondary caries versus GIC (RR 3.05, 95% CI 0.95-9.79; low certainty).

2 findings from 1 review

Glass ionomer cement vs Resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC)

Secondary caries · Patients requiring dental restoration; deciduous (primary) teeth

Over 2 or more years in deciduous teeth, GIC probably had a higher risk of secondary caries than RMGIC (RR 1.92, 95% CI 1.03-3.56; moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Compomer (Dyract) vs Glass ionomer cement (GIC)

Secondary caries · Patients requiring dental restoration; permanent teeth

Over 2 or more years in permanent teeth, the effect of compomer versus GIC on secondary caries is very uncertain (RR 3.20, 95% CI 0.59-17.33; very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Compomer (Dyract) vs Resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC)

Secondary caries · Patients requiring dental restoration; deciduous (primary) teeth

Over 2 or more years in deciduous teeth, secondary caries did not differ significantly between compomer and RMGIC (RR 1.68, 95% CI 0.87-3.25; low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review