Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

96 questions · 140 findings · 11 reviews · All outcomes

No studies found 10 · 7.1%GRADE not reported 109 · 77.9%Very low 5 · 3.6%Low 13 · 9.3%Moderate 3 · 2.1%High 0 · 0%

Slow-release fluoride device (fluoride glass beads) vs Fluoride mouthrinse

Number of participants with more severe DLs (severity of DLs) · Orthodontic patients of any age with fixed braces (new DLs assessed at debond)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Fluoride varnish vs Non-fluoride (placebo) varnish

Number of participants with new demineralised lesions (DLs) · Orthodontic patients of any age with fixed braces (new DLs assessed at debond)

Professionally-applied fluoride varnish (7700 or 10,000 ppm F),… showed no clear difference in number of participants with new demineralised lesions (DLs) compared with non-fluoride (placebo) varnish (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Fluoride varnish vs Non-fluoride (placebo) varnish

Number of participants with more severe DLs (score 3 or 4 versus 1 or 2) · Orthodontic patients of any age with fixed braces (new DLs assessed at debond)

Professionally-applied fluoride varnish (7700 ppm F ammonium… may leads to lower number of participants with more severe DLs (score 3 or 4 versus 1… compared with non-fluoride (placebo) varnish (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Resin-modified glass ionomer cement for bonding orthodontic brackets vs Composite resin for bonding brackets

Number of participants with new demineralised lesions (DLs) · Orthodontic patients of any age with fixed braces (new DLs assessed at debond)

Resin-modified glass ionomer cement for bonding orthodontic brackets showed no clear difference in number of participants with new demineralised lesions (DLs) compared with light-cured composite resin for bonding brackets (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Resin-modified glass ionomer cement for bonding orthodontic brackets vs Composite resin for bonding brackets

Number of participants with more severe DLs of aesthetic concern · Orthodontic patients of any age with fixed braces (new DLs assessed at debond)

Resin-modified glass ionomer cement for bonding orthodontic brackets showed no clear difference in number of participants with more severe DLs of aesthetic concern compared with light-cured composite resin for bonding brackets (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

12,500 ppm F (NaF/olaflur/dectaflur) amine fluoride gel, professionally applied every 3 months plus home use vs Placebo gel

Number of participants with new demineralised lesions (DLs) · Orthodontic patients of any age with fixed braces (new DLs assessed at debond)

It is very uncertain whether 12,500 ppm F (NaF/olaflur/dectaflur) amine fluoride gel,… changes number of participants with new demineralised lesions (DLs) compared with 0 ppm F placebo gel (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Patient-used 250 ppm F mouthrinse (100 ppm amine F/150 ppm NaF), daily vs 0 ppm F placebo mouthrinse, daily

Number of participants with more severe DLs (severity of DLs) · Orthodontic patients of any age with fixed braces (new DLs assessed at debond)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Slow-release fluoride device (fluoride glass beads) vs Fluoride mouthrinse

Number of participants with new demineralised lesions (DLs) · Orthodontic patients of any age with fixed braces (new DLs assessed at debond)

It is very uncertain whether intraoral fluoride-releasing glass bead device attached to the brace changes number of participants with new demineralised lesions (DLs) compared with 250 ppm F (daily) fluoride mouthrinse (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Patient-used 250 ppm F mouthrinse (100 ppm amine F/150 ppm NaF), daily vs 0 ppm F placebo mouthrinse, daily

Number of participants with new demineralised lesions (DLs) · Orthodontic patients of any age with fixed braces (new DLs assessed at debond)

It is very uncertain whether patient-used 250 ppm F mouthrinse (100 ppm amine F/150 ppm NaF), daily changes number of participants with new demineralised lesions (DLs) compared with 0 ppm F placebo mouthrinse, daily (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Patient-used 5000 ppm F toothpaste, daily vs 1450 to 1500 ppm F toothpaste

Number of participants with new demineralised lesions (DLs) · Orthodontic patients of any age with fixed braces (new DLs assessed at debond)

Patient-used 5000 ppm F toothpaste, daily throughout treatment showed no clear difference in number of participants with new demineralised lesions (DLs) compared with 1450 ppm F (conventional) toothpaste, daily (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Professionally-applied 12,300 ppm F APF foam, every 2 months vs 0 ppm F placebo foam

Number of participants with more severe DLs (severity of DLs) · Orthodontic patients of any age with fixed braces (new DLs assessed at debond)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Professionally-applied 12,300 ppm F APF foam, every 2 months vs 0 ppm F placebo foam

Number of participants with new demineralised lesions (DLs) · Orthodontic patients of any age with fixed braces (new DLs assessed at debond)

Professionally-applied 12,300 ppm F APF foam, every 2 months may leads to lower number of participants with new demineralised lesions (DLs) compared with 0 ppm F placebo foam (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Resin infiltration 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…

Resin infiltration did not differ significantly from CPP-ACFP (SMD -0.52, 95% CI -1.16 to 0.12; indirect evidence only); certainty of evidence not assessed (no GRADE).

1 finding from 1 review

P11-4 + fluoride varnish 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…

P11-4 plus fluoride varnish was significantly better than CPP-ACP (SMD -0.78, 95% CI -1.33 to -0.24; indirect evidence only); certainty of evidence not assessed (no GRADE).

1 finding from 1 review

Resin infiltration 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…

Resin infiltration was significantly better than fluoride varnish (SMD -0.70, 95% CI -1.18 to -0.21); certainty of evidence not assessed (no GRADE).

1 finding from 1 review

Resin infiltration vs P11-4 + 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…

Resin infiltration and P11-4 plus fluoride varnish did not differ significantly (SMD 0.01, 95% CI -0.62 to 0.65; indirect evidence only); certainty of evidence not assessed (no GRADE).

1 finding from 1 review

Resin infiltration vs Self-assembling peptide P11-4

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…

Resin infiltration did not differ significantly from P11-4 alone (SMD -0.39, 95% CI -0.97 to 0.20); certainty of evidence not assessed (no GRADE).

1 finding from 1 review

Self-assembling peptide P11-4 vs Placebo or no active treatment

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 significantly improved remineralization versus control (SMD -0.56, 95% CI -0.96 to -0.15); certainty of evidence not assessed (no GRADE).

1 finding from 1 review

P11-4 + fluoride varnish 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…

P11-4 plus fluoride varnish was significantly better than fluoride varnish alone (SMD -0.71, 95% CI -1.13 to -0.29); certainty of evidence not assessed (no GRADE).

1 finding from 1 review

Resin infiltration 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…

Resin infiltration was significantly better than CPP-ACP (SMD -0.77, 95% CI -1.31 to -0.23); certainty of evidence not assessed (no GRADE).

1 finding from 1 review