Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

1,127 questions · 1,590 findings · 132 reviews · All outcomes

No studies found 189 · 11.9%GRADE not reported 1,166 · 73.3%Very low 130 · 8.2%Low 69 · 4.3%Moderate 25 · 1.6%High 11 · 0.7%

Low income vs High income

Prevalence of untreated decay (% DT > 0) · Adults aged 25 years and older in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States

In Australia, low versus high income differed by 11.90 percentage points in prevalence of untreated decay.

5 findings from 1 review
Show 2 more findings

Low income vs High income

Mean number of decayed teeth (mean DT) · Adults aged 25 years and older in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States

Across four countries, low versus high income differed by 0.44 decayed teeth in mean number of decayed teeth (random-effects meta-analysis; I2=76.4%).

5 findings from 1 review
Show 2 more findings

Low income vs High income

Prevalence of fair/poor self-rated oral health · Adults aged 25 years and older in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United States

Across four countries, low versus high income differed by 15.77 percentage points in prevalence of fair/poor self-rated oral health (random-effects meta-analysis; I2=13.4%).

5 findings from 1 review
Show 2 more findings

Low polymerization shrinkage resin composite (silorane, ormocer, bulk-fill or other modified-monomer composite) vs Conventional methacrylate-based resin composite

Marginal adaptation (clinically detectable deterioration) · People with permanent posterior teeth restored with class I or II direct restorations

At 60 months, marginal adaptation did not differ significantly between the composites (4 groups; ungraded).

5 findings from 1 review
Show 2 more findings

Low polymerization shrinkage resin composite (silorane, ormocer, bulk-fill or other modified-monomer composite) vs Conventional methacrylate-based resin composite

Secondary caries · People with permanent posterior teeth restored with class I or II direct restorations

No secondary caries was reported at 24 months in any of seven studies, so no meta-analysis was possible (ungraded).

2 findings from 1 review

Low polymerization shrinkage resin composite (silorane, ormocer, bulk-fill or other modified-monomer composite) vs Conventional methacrylate-based resin composite

Marginal discoloration · People with permanent posterior teeth restored with class I or II direct restorations

At 24 months, marginal discoloration did not differ significantly (7 groups; p = 0.77; ungraded).

4 findings from 1 review
Show 1 more finding

Low polymerization shrinkage resin composite (silorane, ormocer, bulk-fill or other modified-monomer composite) vs Conventional methacrylate-based resin composite

Retention (restoration loss) · People with permanent posterior teeth restored with class I or II direct restorations

At 24 months, retention did not differ significantly between the composites (6 studies; ungraded).

2 findings from 1 review

Low polymerization shrinkage resin composite (silorane, ormocer, bulk-fill or other modified-monomer composite) vs Conventional methacrylate-based resin composite

Postoperative sensitivity · People with permanent posterior teeth restored with class I or II direct restorations

Postoperative sensitivity at 12 months did not differ significantly between low polymerization shrinkage and methacrylate composites (OR 1.65, 95% CI 0.71 to 3.81; Moderate certainty).

2 findings from 1 review

Sociodemographic and behavioural factors (older age, lower education, lower income, poor oral hygiene/brushing, smoking, disadvantaged/slum residence, sex) vs Referent groups (younger, higher education/income, better oral hygiene, non-slum residence)

Determinants of oral diseases · Adult residents of slums and non-slum urban settings of LMICs

Age, education, income, oral-hygiene behaviour, dental-visit pattern and slum/disadvantaged residence are associated with oral disease; gender effects are disease-specific; ungraded.

1 finding from 1 review

Gum chewing (sugar-free) vs No chewing gum

Salivary flow rate · Elderly (>60 years) and medically compromised adults with xerostomia / dry mouth

Across 19 studies the effect of gum chewing on stimulated and/or unstimulated salivary flow rate was mixed (9 positive, 10 no effect); this broad outcome was not meta-analyzed.

1 finding from 1 review

Daily chewing gum for 2 weeks or longer vs No gum chewing or control

Salivary flow rate (unstimulated) · Elderly (>60 years) and medically compromised adults with xerostomia / dry mouth

codex

1 finding from 1 review

Gum chewing (sugar-free) vs No chewing gum

Salivary flow rate (unstimulated) · Elderly (>60 years) and medically compromised adults with xerostomia / dry mouth

In elderly and medically compromised people with xerostomia, chewing sugar-free gum daily for two or more weeks produces a small but statistically significant increase in unstimulated whole salivary flow rate versus no gum (SMD 0.44, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.66); certainty of evidence was not formally graded.

1 finding from 1 review

Bethanechol vs Artificial saliva

Salivary flow rate (unstimulated) · Patients receiving radiotherapy on its own or in addition to chemotherapy to the head and neck region

Bethanechol led to higher salivary flow rate (unstimulated, ml/min) compared with artificial saliva; GRADE not reported.

2 findings from 1 review

Chinese medicine vs no treatment/placebo

Salivary flow rate (stimulated) · Patients receiving radiotherapy on its own or in addition to chemotherapy to the head and neck region

Chinese medicine led to higher salivary flow rate (stimulated) compared with no treatment/placebo; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Amifostine vs no treatment/placebo

Salivary flow rate (unstimulated) · Patients receiving radiotherapy on its own or in addition to chemotherapy to the head and neck region

It is very uncertain whether amifostine changes salivary flow rate (mg/5 min, unstimulated) compared with no treatment/placebo (very low certainty).

2 findings from 1 review

Keratinocyte growth factor (KGF; palifermin or repifermin), intravenous vs placebo

Salivary flow rate · Patients receiving radiotherapy on its own or in addition to chemotherapy to the head and neck region

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review