Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

1,270 questions · 1,480 findings · 174 reviews

Sort:Best matchNewest Highest certainty Download CSV

No studies found 252 · 17%GRADE not reported 405 · 27.4%Very low 301 · 20.3%Low 284 · 19.2%Moderate 174 · 11.8%High 64 · 4.3%

Sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl), 2.5% to 5.25% vs Chlorhexidine, 0.2% to 2% (solution or gel)

Adverse effects · Patients aged 14 to 78 years with mature permanent teeth (fully formed roots), single or multi-rooted, with pulpal or periapical…

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Irrigants for non‐surgical root canal treatment in mature permanent teeth 2012 · Cochrane All outcomes
no estimate extracted
0 studies
No studies found

Chlorhexidine 0.2% vs Normal saline

Proportion of participants or samples with positive bacterial growth culture, up to 72 hours after the procedure · Patients aged 14 to 78 years with mature permanent teeth (fully formed roots), single or multi-rooted, with pulpal or periapical…

1 finding from 1 review

Irrigants for non‐surgical root canal treatment in mature permanent teeth 2012 · Cochrane All outcomes
Positive bacterial cultures at end of first appointment: 65% of samples (chlorhexidine 0.2%) vs 89% (normal saline); no further data reported.
1 study
GRADE not reported

Sodium hypochlorite 5.25% vs Normal saline

Adverse effects · Patients aged 14 to 78 years with mature permanent teeth (fully formed roots), single or multi-rooted, with pulpal or periapical…

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Irrigants for non‐surgical root canal treatment in mature permanent teeth 2012 · Cochrane All outcomes
no estimate extracted
0 studies
No studies found

Chlorhexidine 0.2% vs Normal saline

Mean change in health-related quality of life or participant-expressed satisfaction with the procedure · Patients aged 14 to 78 years with mature permanent teeth (fully formed roots), single or multi-rooted, with pulpal or periapical…

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Irrigants for non‐surgical root canal treatment in mature permanent teeth 2012 · Cochrane All outcomes
no estimate extracted
0 studies
No studies found

Sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl), 2.5% to 5.25% vs Sodium hypochlorite 1%

Sodium hypochlorite 5% (also 2.5%) led to lower proportion of participants or samples with positive bacterial growth… compared with sodium hypochlorite 1%; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Irrigants for non‐surgical root canal treatment in mature permanent teeth 2012 · Cochrane All outcomes
RR 0.22 [0.051, 0.91]
1 study · 111 participants
GRADE not reported

Sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl), 2.5% to 5.25% vs Chlorhexidine, 0.2% to 2% (solution or gel)

Proportion of participants with moderate to severe pain 72 hours to 14 days after the procedure · Patients aged 14 to 78 years with mature permanent teeth (fully formed roots), single or multi-rooted, with pulpal or periapical…

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Irrigants for non‐surgical root canal treatment in mature permanent teeth 2012 · Cochrane All outcomes
no estimate extracted
0 studies
No studies found

Sodium hypochlorite 5.25% vs Normal saline

Proportion of participants with new or worsening signs/symptoms of inflammation requiring a revisit, up to 14 days after the procedure · Patients aged 14 to 78 years with mature permanent teeth (fully formed roots), single or multi-rooted, with pulpal or periapical…

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Irrigants for non‐surgical root canal treatment in mature permanent teeth 2012 · Cochrane All outcomes
no estimate extracted
0 studies
No studies found

Sodium hypochlorite 1% with chlorhexidine 2% final rinse vs Sodium hypochlorite 1% with normal saline final rinse

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Irrigants for non‐surgical root canal treatment in mature permanent teeth 2012 · Cochrane All outcomes
no estimate extracted
0 studies
No studies found

Sodium hypochlorite 5% vs Sodium hypochlorite 5% with proteolytic enzyme

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Irrigants for non‐surgical root canal treatment in mature permanent teeth 2012 · Cochrane All outcomes
no estimate extracted
0 studies
No studies found

Sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl), 2.5% to 5.25% vs Chlorhexidine, 0.2% to 2% (solution or gel)

Change in periapical radiolucency (radiography or CBCT), up to 1 year after treatment · Patients aged 14 to 78 years with mature permanent teeth (fully formed roots), single or multi-rooted, with pulpal or periapical…

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Irrigants for non‐surgical root canal treatment in mature permanent teeth 2012 · Cochrane All outcomes
no estimate extracted
0 studies
No studies found

Titanium (Procera) abutment vs Gold-alloy (machined UCLA) abutment

Success / prosthetic complications (4 years) · Patients with single-tooth implant crowns; split-mouth, 4-year

1 finding from 1 review

Interventions for replacing missing teeth: partially absent dentition 2012 · Cochrane All outcomes
4 years
100% success, no prosthetic complications, and a similar loss of marginal bone (0.4 mm) in both groups (narrative)
1 study · 20 participants
GRADE not reported

Sodium hypochlorite 1.3% with MTAD final rinse vs Sodium hypochlorite 1.3% with normal saline final rinse

1 finding from 1 review

Irrigants for non‐surgical root canal treatment in mature permanent teeth 2012 · Cochrane All outcomes
Vital bacterial counts decreased after the active intervention (MTAD) but live bacteria were present in all of the samples; no further usable data reported.
1 study
GRADE not reported

Sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl), 2.5% to 5.25% vs Sodium hypochlorite 1%

Proportion of participants with moderate to severe pain up to 6 hours after the procedure · Patients aged 14 to 78 years with mature permanent teeth (fully formed roots), single or multi-rooted, with pulpal or periapical…

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Irrigants for non‐surgical root canal treatment in mature permanent teeth 2012 · Cochrane All outcomes
no estimate extracted
0 studies
No studies found

Sodium hypochlorite 1.3% with MTAD final rinse vs Sodium hypochlorite 1.3% with normal saline final rinse

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Irrigants for non‐surgical root canal treatment in mature permanent teeth 2012 · Cochrane All outcomes
no estimate extracted
0 studies
No studies found

Sodium hypochlorite 5.25% vs Sodium hypochlorite 5.25% with hydrogen peroxide 3%

Sodium hypochlorite 5.25% showed no clear difference in proportion of participants with moderate to severe pain 72 hours to… compared with sodium hypochlorite 5.25% with hydrogen peroxide 3%; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Irrigants for non‐surgical root canal treatment in mature permanent teeth 2012 · Cochrane All outcomes
RR 1.22 [0.4, 4.2]
1 study · 167 participants
GRADE not reported

ART sealant using high-viscosity glass ionomer (press-finger technique) vs No comparator

Retention of sealant (complete or partial retention) · Pits and fissures of permanent (posterior) teeth

High-viscosity glass-ionomer ART sealants showed 4-year retention of 68% (95% CI 61-75%); evidence ungraded.

6 findings from 1 review

Survival of atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) sealants and restorations: a meta-analysis. 2011 All outcomes
4 years · Dental clinics, primary schools and field settings across 18 countries · partially and fully retained high-viscosity glass-ionomer ART sealants in permanent dentitions, 4 years
Proportion 0.68 [0.61, 0.75]
1 study
GRADE not reported
Survival of atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) sealants and restorations: a meta-analysis. 2011 All outcomes
2 years · Dental clinics, primary schools and field settings across 18 countries · partially and fully retained high-viscosity glass-ionomer ART sealants in permanent dentitions, 2 years
Proportion 0.82 [0.77, 0.86]
2 studies
GRADE not reported
Survival of atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) sealants and restorations: a meta-analysis. 2011 All outcomes
3 years · Dental clinics, primary schools and field settings across 18 countries · partially and fully retained high-viscosity glass-ionomer ART sealants in permanent dentitions, 3 years
Proportion 0.72 [0.72, 0.86]
2 studies
GRADE not reported

Show 3 more findings

Survival of atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) sealants and restorations: a meta-analysis. 2011 All outcomes
1 year · Dental clinics, primary schools and field settings across 18 countries · partially and fully retained high-viscosity glass-ionomer ART sealants in permanent dentitions, 1 year
Proportion 0.75 [0.51, 0.91]
3 studies
GRADE not reported
Survival of atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) sealants and restorations: a meta-analysis. 2011 All outcomes
5 years · Dental clinics, primary schools and field settings across 18 countries · partially and fully retained high-viscosity glass-ionomer ART sealants in permanent dentitions, 5 years
Proportion 0.63 [0.56, 0.70]
1 study
GRADE not reported
Survival of atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) sealants and restorations: a meta-analysis. 2011 All outcomes
6 years · Dental clinics, primary schools and field settings across 18 countries · partially and fully retained high-viscosity glass-ionomer ART sealants in permanent dentitions, 6 years
Proportion 0.59 [0.51, 0.67]
1 study
GRADE not reported

High-viscosity glass-ionomer ART restorations vs No comparator

Restoration survival · Permanent posterior teeth with single-surface cavities

The pooled survival rate was 93% at 2 years.

6 findings from 1 review

Survival of atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) sealants and restorations: a meta-analysis. 2011 All outcomes
2 years · School clinic or field · single-surface permanent posterior teeth, 2 years
Survival percentage 93 [89, 95]
13 studies
GRADE not reported
Survival of atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) sealants and restorations: a meta-analysis. 2011 All outcomes
4 years · School clinic or field · single-surface permanent posterior teeth, 4 years
Survival percentage 86 [78, 93]
3 studies
GRADE not reported
Survival of atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) sealants and restorations: a meta-analysis. 2011 All outcomes
6 years · School clinic or field · single-surface permanent posterior teeth, 6 years
Survival percentage 72 [67, 76]
2 studies
GRADE not reported

Show 3 more findings

Survival of atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) sealants and restorations: a meta-analysis. 2011 All outcomes
5 years · School clinic or field · single-surface permanent posterior teeth, 5 years
Survival percentage 80 [76, 83]
3 studies
GRADE not reported
Survival of atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) sealants and restorations: a meta-analysis. 2011 All outcomes
3 years · School clinic or field · single-surface permanent posterior teeth, 3 years
Survival percentage 85 [77, 91]
6 studies
GRADE not reported
Survival of atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) sealants and restorations: a meta-analysis. 2011 All outcomes
1 year · School clinic or field · single-surface permanent posterior teeth, 1 year
Survival percentage 96 [94, 97]
15 studies
GRADE not reported

Multiple-surface ART restoration using high-viscosity glass ionomer vs No comparator

Restoration survival · Primary posterior teeth with multiple-surface cavities

Multiple-surface high-viscosity glass-ionomer ART restorations in primary teeth had moderate 2-year survival (62%, 95% CI 51-73%); evidence ungraded.

3 findings from 1 review

Survival of atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) sealants and restorations: a meta-analysis. 2011 All outcomes
2 years · Dental clinics, primary schools and field settings across 18 countries · multiple-surface primary posterior teeth, 2 years
Proportion 0.62 [0.51, 0.73]
6 studies
GRADE not reported
Survival of atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) sealants and restorations: a meta-analysis. 2011 All outcomes
1 year · Dental clinics, primary schools and field settings across 18 countries · multiple-surface primary posterior teeth, 1 year
Proportion 0.71 [0.60, 0.80]
8 studies
GRADE not reported
Survival of atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) sealants and restorations: a meta-analysis. 2011 All outcomes
3 years · Dental clinics, primary schools and field settings across 18 countries · multiple-surface primary posterior teeth, 3 years
Proportion 0.31 [0.02, 0.77]
2 studies
GRADE not reported

High-viscosity glass-ionomer ART restorations vs No comparator

Restoration survival · Primary posterior teeth with single-surface cavities

The pooled survival rate was 95% at 1 year.

3 findings from 1 review

Survival of atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) sealants and restorations: a meta-analysis. 2011 All outcomes
1 year · School or clinic · single-surface primary posterior teeth, 1 year
Survival percentage 95 [91, 98]
9 studies
GRADE not reported
Survival of atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) sealants and restorations: a meta-analysis. 2011 All outcomes
3 years · School or clinic · single-surface primary posterior teeth, 3 years
Survival percentage 66 [13, 99]
2 studies
GRADE not reported
Survival of atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) sealants and restorations: a meta-analysis. 2011 All outcomes
2 years · School or clinic · single-surface primary posterior teeth, 2 years
Survival percentage 93 [91, 94]
6 studies
GRADE not reported

ART sealant using high-viscosity glass ionomer (press-finger technique) vs No comparator

Caries-free sealed pits and fissures · Pits and fissures of permanent (posterior) teeth

Pits and fissures sealed with high-viscosity glass-ionomer ART sealants remained dentine lesion-free in 100% (95% CI 99-100%) at 1-year; evidence ungraded.

6 findings from 1 review

Survival of atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) sealants and restorations: a meta-analysis. 2011 All outcomes
1 year · Dental clinics, primary schools and field settings across 18 countries · permanent dentitions with high-viscosity glass-ionomer ART sealants, 1 year
Proportion 1.00 [0.99, 1.00]
4 studies
GRADE not reported
Survival of atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) sealants and restorations: a meta-analysis. 2011 All outcomes
4 years · Dental clinics, primary schools and field settings across 18 countries · permanent dentitions with high-viscosity glass-ionomer ART sealants, 4 years
Proportion 0.93 [0.91, 0.96]
2 studies
GRADE not reported
Survival of atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) sealants and restorations: a meta-analysis. 2011 All outcomes
2 years · Dental clinics, primary schools and field settings across 18 countries · permanent dentitions with high-viscosity glass-ionomer ART sealants, 2 years
Proportion 1.00 [0.98, 1.00]
3 studies
GRADE not reported

Show 3 more findings

Survival of atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) sealants and restorations: a meta-analysis. 2011 All outcomes
3 years · Dental clinics, primary schools and field settings across 18 countries · permanent dentitions with high-viscosity glass-ionomer ART sealants, 3 years
Proportion 0.97 [0.96, 0.98]
3 studies
GRADE not reported
Survival of atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) sealants and restorations: a meta-analysis. 2011 All outcomes
5 years · Dental clinics, primary schools and field settings across 18 countries · permanent dentitions with high-viscosity glass-ionomer ART sealants, 5 years
Proportion 0.90 [0.85, 0.94]
2 studies
GRADE not reported
Survival of atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) sealants and restorations: a meta-analysis. 2011 All outcomes
6 years · Dental clinics, primary schools and field settings across 18 countries · permanent dentitions with high-viscosity glass-ionomer ART sealants, 6 years
Proportion 0.85 [0.79, 0.91]
1 study
GRADE not reported