Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

175 questions · 227 findings · 24 reviews · Dental caries

No studies found 3 · 1.3%GRADE not reported 170 · 74.9%Very low 25 · 11%Low 15 · 6.6%Moderate 12 · 5.3%High 2 · 0.9%

Fixed orthodontic treatment with fixed (multibracket) appliances (exposure) vs None (single-group prevalence/incidence estimate)

Incidence of new ICLs (mean number of new lesions per subject) · Patients undergoing fixed orthodontic treatment with fixed (multibracket) appliances, followed for development of new ICLs

Patients developed on average about 2.29 new ICLs during fixed orthodontic treatment (95% CI 1.12-3.46; very low certainty; very high heterogeneity).

1 finding from 1 review

Fixed orthodontic treatment with fixed (multibracket) appliances (exposure) vs None (single-group prevalence/incidence estimate)

Prevalence of ICLs (mean number of lesions per subject) · Patients (permanent dentition) during or after fixed orthodontic treatment with fixed (multibracket) appliances

Patients had on average about 2.24 ICLs per subject during/after fixed orthodontic treatment (95% CI 1.79-2.70; very low certainty; very high heterogeneity).

1 finding from 1 review

Fixed orthodontic treatment with fixed (multibracket) appliances (exposure) vs None (single-group prevalence/incidence estimate)

Incidence of new ICLs (proportion of tooth surfaces developing new lesions) · Patients undergoing fixed orthodontic treatment with fixed (multibracket) appliances, followed for development of new ICLs

About 15% of tooth surfaces developed new ICLs during fixed orthodontic treatment (pooled 0.15, 95% CI 0.08-0.26; very low certainty; extreme heterogeneity).

1 finding from 1 review

Fixed orthodontic treatment with fixed (multibracket) appliances (exposure) vs None (single-group prevalence/incidence estimate)

Association between orthodontic treatment duration and ICLs prevalence · Patients (permanent dentition) during or after fixed orthodontic treatment with fixed (multibracket) appliances

ICLs prevalence increased with longer orthodontic treatment duration (meta-regression P=.01; ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Fixed orthodontic treatment with fixed (multibracket) appliances (exposure) vs None (single-group prevalence/incidence estimate)

Association between patient age and number of ICLs · Patients (permanent dentition) during or after fixed orthodontic treatment with fixed (multibracket) appliances

Patient age was not significantly associated with the number of ICLs (ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Fixed orthodontic treatment with fixed (multibracket) appliances (exposure) vs None (single-group prevalence/incidence estimate)

Association between orthodontic treatment duration and ICLs incidence · Patients undergoing fixed orthodontic treatment with fixed (multibracket) appliances, followed for development of new ICLs

ICLs incidence increased with longer orthodontic treatment duration (meta-regression P<.01; ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Fixed orthodontic treatment with fixed (multibracket) appliances (exposure) vs None (single-group prevalence/incidence estimate)

Incidence of new ICLs (proportion of subjects developing new lesions) · Patients undergoing fixed orthodontic treatment with fixed (multibracket) appliances, followed for development of new ICLs

About 48% of patients developed new ICLs during fixed orthodontic treatment (pooled incidence 0.48, 95% CI 0.33-0.63; very low certainty; very high heterogeneity).

1 finding from 1 review

Fixed orthodontic treatment with fixed (multibracket) appliances (exposure) vs None (single-group prevalence/incidence estimate)

Prevalence of ICLs (proportion of tooth surfaces affected) · Patients (permanent dentition) during or after fixed orthodontic treatment with fixed (multibracket) appliances

About 22% of tooth surfaces showed ICLs during/after fixed orthodontic treatment (pooled 0.22, 95% CI 0.14-0.33; very low certainty; extreme heterogeneity).

1 finding from 1 review

Fixed orthodontic treatment with fixed (multibracket) appliances (exposure) vs None (single-group prevalence/incidence estimate)

Prevalence of ICLs (proportion of subjects affected) · Patients (permanent dentition) during or after fixed orthodontic treatment with fixed (multibracket) appliances

Around 57% of patients had ICLs during or after fixed orthodontic treatment (pooled prevalence 0.57, 95% CI 0.48-0.65; very low certainty; very high heterogeneity).

1 finding from 1 review

Non-syndromic cleft lip and palate (CLP) status and its oral microbiota (exposure/grouping) vs Children and adolescents aged 0-18 years without CLP (controls)

Dental caries · Children and adolescents aged 0-18 years with non-syndromic cleft lip and palate (CLP)

Pooling 3 studies, children/adolescents with CLP were about 2.03 times more likely to have dental caries than non-CLP controls (p<0.005; low heterogeneity), though most included studies were at high risk of bias; the evidence is ungraded.

1 finding from 1 review

Non-syndromic cleft lip and palate (CLP) status and its oral microbiota (exposure/grouping) vs Children and adolescents aged 0-18 years without CLP (controls)

Lactobacillus spp. salivary/plaque counts (cariogenic microbiota) · Children and adolescents aged 0-18 years with non-syndromic cleft lip and palate (CLP)

A meta-analysis found no significant difference in mean Lactobacillus spp. levels between children with and without CLP, with high heterogeneity; the evidence is ungraded.

1 finding from 1 review

Non-syndromic cleft lip and palate (CLP) status and its oral microbiota (exposure/grouping) vs Children and adolescents aged 0-18 years without CLP (controls)

Streptococcus mutans count · Children and adolescents aged 0-18 years with non-syndromic cleft lip and palate (CLP)

A meta-analysis of 2 studies found no difference in mean Streptococcus mutans levels between children with and without CLP, with very high heterogeneity; the evidence is ungraded.

1 finding from 1 review

Non-syndromic cleft lip and palate (CLP) status and its oral microbiota (exposure/grouping) vs Children and adolescents aged 0-18 years without CLP (controls)

Periodontal conditions (gingival inflammation, bleeding on probing, probing depth, clinical attachment loss) · Children and adolescents aged 0-18 years with non-syndromic cleft lip and palate (CLP)

Narrative synthesis of 6 studies suggests children/adolescents with CLP have poorer periodontal status (higher gingival and plaque indices, deeper probing, more bleeding and attachment loss) and harbor periodontopathogens; no pooled estimate and the evidence is ungraded.

1 finding from 1 review

E-cigarette aerosol / e-liquid exposure (flavored and unflavored; nicotine and non-nicotine) vs Unexposed controls / unflavored e-liquid / conventional cigarette smoke

Enamel/dental hard-tissue changes and e-liquid cariogenic properties (demineralization, colour change, pH, sugar content, metals) · Oral bacteria (streptococci), dental hard tissue (enamel/dentin) and e-liquids studied in vitro/ex vivo (with a few clinical microbiome…

In vitro evidence suggests e-liquids are often acidic and sugar-containing and can alter enamel/dentin colour and properties, supporting a plausible cariogenic effect, but findings are heterogeneous and not pooled (ungraded, narrative).

1 finding from 1 review

E-cigarette aerosol / e-liquid exposure (flavored and unflavored; nicotine and non-nicotine) vs Unexposed controls / unflavored e-liquid / conventional cigarette smoke

Cariogenic and commensal oral bacteria (S. mutans and commensal streptococci growth, adhesion, biofilm) · Oral bacteria (streptococci), dental hard tissue (enamel/dentin) and e-liquids studied in vitro/ex vivo (with a few clinical microbiome…

Most in vitro studies indicate e-cigarette aerosol/e-liquid (especially flavored/high-concentration) disrupts normal oral flora and favors cariogenic S. mutans growth and biofilm, plausibly increasing caries risk; not pooled (ungraded, narrative).

1 finding from 1 review

All exposure-OHRQoL estimates pooled for publication-bias correction (meta-trim sensitivity); specific exposure set not defined in source vs Not specified

Poor oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) · Children aged 3-12 years

A trim-and-fill sensitivity analysis pooling every exposure estimate gave an overall OR of 0.17 (95% CI 0.13-0.21) after correcting for significant publication bias (Fig. 13); this combined estimate spans heterogeneous exposures and is a publication-bias sensitivity result (ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Minimally invasive caries removal (MIT): selective removal to soft dentin, self-limiting chemomechanical removal, or partial/incomplete caries removal vs Conventional caries removal (CT): selective removal to firm dentin, stepwise excavation, or complete caries removal

Pulp exposure rate · Patients with deep carious lesions in permanent (mainly posterior) teeth

Minimally invasive caries removal was associated with a lower mean pulp exposure rate than conventional removal (1.2% vs 8.1%), but the difference was not statistically significant (Wilcoxon, p = 0.068); certainty of evidence was not graded.

1 finding from 1 review

Stepwise excavation (two-stage caries removal, re-entry after an interval) vs Non-selective or complete carious tissue removal

Pulp exposure during caries removal · Children (3-11 years) with symptomless, vital dentine caries in primary molars

Stepwise excavation reduced the reported risk of pulp exposure by 69% versus complete caries removal (RR 0.31; ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Selective carious tissue removal (selective excavation, SE) vs Non-selective or complete carious tissue removal

Pulp exposure during caries removal · Children with dentine caries in primary and permanent teeth

Partial caries removal was reported to reduce pulp-exposure risk by 77% versus complete caries removal (RR 0.23; ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review