Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

145 questions · 163 findings · 11 reviews

No studies found 9 · 5.5%GRADE not reported 112 · 68.7%Very low 42 · 25.8%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%

Fluorides combined with CPP-ACP vs Fluorides alone (monotherapy)

Visual inspection scores · Patients with early caries lesions in permanent teeth (non-fluoridated water area)

Two trials reported visual inspection scores but could not be pooled (different criteria, missing standard deviations) and gave inconsistent findings, so no quantitative conclusion could be drawn.

1 finding from 1 review

Fluorides combined with CPP-ACP vs Fluorides alone (monotherapy)

Laser fluorescence (LF) change · Patients with early caries lesions in permanent teeth (non-fluoridated water area)

For occlusal early caries lesions, adding CPP-ACP to fluorides produced significantly greater laser-fluorescence improvement than fluorides alone (favors the combination); not GRADE-rated.

2 findings from 1 review

Fluorides combined with CPP-ACP vs Fluorides alone (monotherapy)

Total lesion area divided by total surface area (visual) · Patients with early caries lesions in permanent teeth (non-fluoridated water area)

Adding CPP-ACP to fluorides did not significantly change the lesion-area outcome for smooth-surface early caries lesions versus fluorides alone; not GRADE-rated.

1 finding from 1 review

Irradiated carious dentin vs Non-irradiated carious dentin

MMP-2 expression/activity · Human ex vivo carious dentin (head/neck radiotherapy)

MMP-2 showed no difference between irradiated and non-irradiated carious dentin (one study; ungraded).

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

Resin infiltration 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…

Resin infiltration significantly improved remineralization versus control (SMD -0.94, 95% CI -1.46 to -0.43), ranking second of seven therapies by SUCRA (88.7%); certainty of evidence not assessed (no GRADE).

1 finding from 1 review

P11-4 + fluoride varnish 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…

Combined self-assembling peptide P11-4 plus fluoride varnish significantly improved white spot lesion remineralization versus control (SMD -0.96, 95% CI -1.44 to -0.48) and ranked highest of seven therapies by SUCRA (89.7%); certainty of evidence not assessed (no GRADE).

1 finding from 1 review

Irradiated carious dentin vs Non-irradiated carious dentin

MMP-9 expression/activity · Human ex vivo carious dentin (head/neck radiotherapy)

MMP-9 showed no increase in irradiated vs non-irradiated carious dentin (one study; ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Fluoride varnish 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…

Fluoride varnish (gold standard) did not differ significantly from control (SMD -0.25, 95% CI -0.51 to 0.02); certainty of evidence not assessed (no GRADE).

1 finding from 1 review

Irradiated carious dentin vs Non-irradiated carious dentin

MMP-20 expression · Human ex vivo carious dentin (head/neck radiotherapy)

MMP-20 shows no difference between irradiated and non-irradiated carious dentin; the evidence is very uncertain (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

CPP-ACP 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…

CPP-ACP did not differ significantly from control (SMD -0.18, 95% CI -0.49 to 0.14); certainty of evidence not assessed (no GRADE).

1 finding from 1 review

CPP-ACFP 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…

CPP-ACFP versus control gave SMD -0.42 (95% CI -0.84 to 0.00); the review classed CPP-ACFP as statistically significant versus control although the reported CI upper limit is at the null (0.00); certainty of evidence not assessed (no GRADE).

1 finding from 1 review

Selective caries removal (SCR) + composite resin vs Complete caries removal (CCR) + composite resin

Restoration failure · Children with carious primary teeth after vital or non-vital pulp therapy

In one RCT, selective caries removal had a 3.44 higher probability of failure than complete caries removal.

1 finding from 1 review

Composite strip crowns with composite, fiber, or reverse metal posts vs Alternative post type

Restoration failure · Children with carious primary teeth after vital or non-vital pulp therapy

In one RCT, composite strip crowns with composite posts had an annual failure rate of 2.3% after 1 year.

1 finding from 1 review

Compomer (C) vs Resin composite restoration

Treatment failure (annual failure rate) · Children with carious primary molars treated by pulpotomy (vital pulp therapy)

Compomer restorations had an annual failure rate of 8.9% in primary molars after pulpotomy, higher than composite resin in the same trial (single high-risk-of-bias RCT; low quality of evidence; not GRADE-rated).

2 findings from 1 review

Composite resin vs Light-cured compomer (polyacid-modified composite resin)

Restoration failure · Children with carious primary teeth after vital or non-vital pulp therapy

In one RCT, composite resin had an annual failure rate of 0% after 2 years.

1 finding from 1 review

Composite strip crown (CSC) with a post (microhybrid composite resin, Amelogen) vs Post type: composite post (CP) vs fibre post (FP) vs reverse metal post (RMP)

Treatment failure (annual failure rate) · Children with severely decayed maxillary primary incisors treated by pulpectomy (non-vital pulp therapy)

Composite strip crowns with composite posts had a low annual failure rate (2.3%) in maxillary primary incisors after pulpectomy (single high-risk-of-bias RCT; low quality of evidence; not GRADE-rated).

3 findings from 1 review

Preformed metal crown (PMC) vs Resin-modified glass-ionomer cement + composite resin (modified open-sandwich restoration)

Restoration failure · Children with carious primary teeth after vital or non-vital pulp therapy

In one RCT, preformed metal crowns had an annual failure rate of 2.5% after 2 years.

1 finding from 1 review

Preformed metal crown (PMC) vs Resin-modified glass-ionomer cement + composite resin (modified open-sandwich restoration)

Treatment failure (annual failure rate) · Children with carious primary molars treated by pulpotomy (vital pulp therapy)

Preformed metal crowns had a low annual failure rate (2.5%) in primary molars after pulpotomy, but the evidence is of low quality (single high-risk-of-bias split-mouth RCT; not GRADE-rated).

2 findings from 1 review

Bio-active restorative materials vs Any conventional restorative material

Treatment failure (planned; no eligible studies) · Children with carious primary teeth after vital or non-vital pulp therapy

No eligible studies were found evaluating bio-active restorative materials for restoring carious primary teeth after pulp therapy.

1 finding from 1 review