Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

550 questions · 669 findings · 42 reviews

No studies found 162 · 24.2%GRADE not reported 272 · 40.7%Very low 110 · 16.4%Low 93 · 13.9%Moderate 29 · 4.3%High 3 · 0.4%

Individually designed, patient-centred preventive programme: dietary counselling (snacking timing, regular meals, fermentable carbohydrates) plus toothbrushing counselling, delivered by trained dental hygienists (a multi-intervention) vs Basic prevention offered as standard in public dental clinics

Eating warm meals more than twice per day · Children aged 11 to 12 years with at least one active initial caries lesion, screened in a town in Finland
1 finding from 1 review

Individually designed, patient-centred preventive programme: dietary counselling (snacking timing, regular meals, fermentable carbohydrates) plus toothbrushing counselling, delivered by trained dental hygienists (a multi-intervention) vs Basic prevention offered as standard in public dental clinics

Drinking sports drinks no more than once per week · Children aged 11 to 12 years with at least one active initial caries lesion, screened in a town in Finland
1 finding from 1 review

Individually designed, patient-centred preventive programme: dietary counselling (snacking timing, regular meals, fermentable carbohydrates) plus toothbrushing counselling, delivered by trained dental hygienists (a multi-intervention) vs Basic prevention offered as standard in public dental clinics

Using xylitol products more than 3 times per day · Children aged 11 to 12 years with at least one active initial caries lesion, screened in a town in Finland

Individually designed, patient-centred preventive programme: dietary… led to higher using xylitol products more than 3 times per day compared with basic prevention offered as standard in public dental clinics; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Referral letter based on the common-sense model (CSM) of self-regulation vs Standard referral letter

Proportion of children with treated/untreated caries (receipt of dental care) · School children, primary schools in the USA

It is very uncertain whether referral letter based on the common-sense model (CSM) of… changes proportion of children with treated/untreated caries (receipt of… compared with standard referral letter (very low certainty).

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

Cone beam computed tomography (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…
3 findings from 1 review

Cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) vs Digital radiographs (direct within-person / paired comparison); reference standard: histology

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

Cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) vs Digital radiographs (direct within-person / paired comparison); reference standard: histology

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…
2 findings from 1 review

Analogue (conventional) radiographs vs Digital radiographs (direct within-person / paired comparison); 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…
2 findings from 1 review

Digital 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

Digital 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

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

Diagnostic accuracy in previously restored teeth (secondary caries) · Asymptomatic children, adolescents, or adults presenting for clinical examination (in vivo studies), or extracted teeth of children or…

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review
  • Imaging modalities to inform the detection and diagnosis of early caries 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes
    Up to 3 months between index test and reference standard (in vivo studies) · Restorations (secondary caries)
    Pre-specified heterogeneity investigation of teeth with previously applied restorations (secondary caries): no study intentionally included restored teeth in its sample. Studies evaluating secondary caries were…
    0 studies
    No studies found

Electronic caries monitor (ECM) device (ECM II / ECM III / ECM IV) 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)
    ECM (4 studies, 475 tooth surfaces): sensitivity ranged from 0.61 to 0.98 (0.61-0.65 in three studies; 0.98 in the most recent ECM IV study). No evidence of a difference in accuracy by device type (Chi2=0.05, df=1,…
    4 studies
    GRADE not reported

Electronic caries monitor (ECM) device (ECM II / ECM III / ECM IV) 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

Canary System (Quantum Dental Technologies; red fluorescence, scale 0-100) vs Reference standard: histology, enhanced visual examination with or without radiographs, or excavation

Outcome not reported · Children or adults presenting asymptomatically or suspected of having enamel caries (in vivo/clinical studies); extracted teeth of…

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review