Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

75 questions · 100 findings · 25 reviews · Dental caries

No studies found 16 · 16%GRADE not reported 70 · 70%Very low 7 · 7%Low 6 · 6%Moderate 1 · 1%High 0 · 0%

Fluoride-free nano-/micro-hydroxyapatite (nHA) dentifrice vs Control (regular fluoride) dentifrice

Caries lesion initiation/progression (ICDAS score, laser fluorescence/DIAGNOdent, photographic pixels, enamel acid resistance) · Patients (children and adults, age 3-40 years) with initial enamel caries lesions (non-orthodontic and orthodontic)

No meta-analysis was possible for the 5 in vivo RCTs (high heterogeneity); narratively nHA showed generally no significant difference versus fluoridated dentifrice, and the evidence was not graded (ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review
  • Efficacy of nano-hydroxyapatite on caries prevention-a systematic review and meta-analysis. 2022 All outcomes
    Median follow-up 6 months (range 6-12 months) · In vivo (clinical); non-orthodontic and orthodontic patients
    No meta-analysis was performed for the in vivo studies owing to high heterogeneity (population, control group, outcomes, follow-up periods, risk of bias) and differing statistical designs (e.g., non-inferiority);…
    5 studies · 420 participants
    GRADE not reported

Prefabricated zirconia crowns (e.g., NuSmile, Zirkiz, Kinder Krown) vs Other crowns/restorations (stainless steel crowns, pre-veneered SSC, resin composite strip crowns, glass-fiber composite crowns)

Crown retention · Children with primary (deciduous) teeth requiring full-coverage crown restoration

Zirconia crowns showed no significant difference in crown retention versus other restorations at 6 months (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.11; 3 studies; not GRADE-rated).

2 findings from 1 review

Early extraction of a compromised first permanent molar vs Non-extraction (retained first permanent molar) or contralateral non-extraction side

Spontaneous space closure · Children aged 5 to 15 years with a compromised first permanent molar

Early extraction of a compromised first permanent molar is followed by variable spontaneous closure of the post-extraction space (about 45.5% to 85.2% of cases); certainty was not GRADE-rated (Shekelle category III).

1 finding from 1 review

Aesthetic (resin-veneered) crowns vs Conventional metal (stainless steel) crowns

Restoration failure · Children aged 12 years or younger with tooth decay involving at least one tooth in the primary dentition, symptomatic or symptom free

Aesthetic (resin-veneered) crowns showed no clear difference in restoration failure at 6 months compared with conventional metal (stainless steel) crowns; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Aesthetic (resin-veneered) crowns vs Conventional metal (stainless steel) crowns

Occlusion · Children aged 12 years or younger with tooth decay involving at least one tooth in the primary dentition, symptomatic or symptom free

Aesthetic (resin-veneered) crowns led to lower occlusion at 6 months compared with conventional metal (stainless steel) crowns; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Aesthetic (resin-veneered) crowns vs Conventional metal (stainless steel) crowns

Proximal contact at 6 months · Children aged 12 years or younger with tooth decay involving at least one tooth in the primary dentition, symptomatic or symptom free

Aesthetic (resin-veneered) crowns led to lower proximal contact at 6 months compared with conventional metal (stainless steel) crowns; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Aesthetic (resin-veneered) crowns vs Conventional metal (stainless steel) crowns

Marginal integrity of restoration · Children aged 12 years or younger with tooth decay involving at least one tooth in the primary dentition, symptomatic or symptom free

Aesthetic (resin-veneered) crowns led to lower marginal integrity at 6 months compared with conventional metal (stainless steel) crowns; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Aesthetic (resin-veneered) crowns vs Conventional metal (stainless steel) crowns

Gingival health at 6 months · Children aged 12 years or younger with tooth decay involving at least one tooth in the primary dentition, symptomatic or symptom free

Aesthetic (resin-veneered) crowns showed no clear difference in gingival health at 6 months compared with conventional metal (stainless steel) crowns; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Xylitol syrup (high dose, 8 g/day) vs Control (low-dose xylitol, 2.67 g/day) syrup

Adverse effects (loose stools, diarrhoea) · Infants (primary teeth; baseline about 9 to 15 months)
1 finding from 1 review

Xylitol lozenges (5 g/day) vs placebo control

Adverse effects (sores in the mouth, cramps, bloating, constipation, flatulence, loose stool or diarrhoea) · adults
1 finding from 1 review

Xylitol tablets (200 to 600 mg/day) via slow-release pacifier/dummy vs Control (sorbitol) tablets

Number of infants with a caries increment (dmfs) · Infants (primary teeth)

It is very uncertain whether xylitol tablets (200 to 600 mg/day) via slow-release pacifier/dummy changes number of infants with a caries increment (dmfs) compared with control (sorbitol) tablets (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review