Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

67 questions · 78 findings · 22 reviews

No studies found 0 · 0%GRADE not reported 70 · 89.7%Very low 1 · 1.3%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 7 · 9%High 0 · 0%

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

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

Sealing (resin sealant, glass ionomer cement, or polyurethane tape) vs Non-invasive / control treatment

Radiographic proximal caries lesion progression · Patients with non-cavitated proximal (approximal) caries lesions (primary or permanent dentition)

Sealing probably reduces the odds of proximal lesion progression compared with placebo (OR 0.27, 95% CI 0.18 to 0.42; moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Resin infiltration vs Fluoride varnish

Optical/esthetic improvement (DIAGNOdent reading) · Patients (mainly children) with white spot lesions (WSL)

Resin infiltration produced significantly greater optical improvement than fluoride varnish (MD 4.76, 95% CI 0.74 to 8.78; moderate certainty).

3 findings from 1 review

Gum chewing (sugar-free) vs Pooled controls: no gum, placebo/control gum, probiotic, or fluoride varnish

Streptococcus mutans load in the oral cavity (saliva and/or dental plaque) · Adults and children (general population)

In a sensitivity analysis assuming a 0.95 baseline-to-endpoint correlation for the sugar-free gum arm, the effect remained significant (SMD -0.55, 95% CI -0.80 to -0.30; 13 trials, I2 73%); certainty not formally graded.

2 findings from 1 review

Xylitol-only sugar-free chewing gum vs Pooled controls: no gum, placebo/control gum, probiotic, or fluoride varnish

Streptococcus mutans load in the oral cavity (saliva and/or dental plaque) · Adults and children (general population)

Xylitol-only sugar-free gum significantly reduced Streptococcus mutans load versus pooled controls (SMD -0.46, 95% CI -0.64 to -0.28; 12 trials, I2 43%); certainty not formally graded.

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