Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

1,085 questions · 1,232 findings · 66 reviews · Oral Health

No studies found 218 · 17.7%GRADE not reported 745 · 60.5%Very low 179 · 14.5%Low 65 · 5.3%Moderate 25 · 2%High 0 · 0%

Flowable bulk-fill composite resin vs Light-cured compomer (polyacid-modified composite resin)

Restoration failure · Children with carious primary teeth

No comparative effect estimate was reported; both arms had 0% failure.

1 finding from 1 review

Amoxicillin + metronidazole + SRP vs Supragingival scaling (plus placebo)

All‐cause death · People with periodontitis and metabolic syndrome (no CVD; primary prevention)

It is very uncertain whether scaling and root planing (SRP) plus antibiotics (amoxicillin and… changes all-cause death compared with supragingival scaling (plus placebo) (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Composite resin with a beveled cavity margin vs Composite resin with no bevel (butt-joint margin)

Restoration failure · Children with carious primary teeth

No comparative effect estimate was reported; no bevel had twice the failure rate in the review narrative.

1 finding from 1 review

Hall technique vs Compomer restoration or non-restorative caries treatment

Restoration failure · Children with carious primary teeth

No comparative effect estimate was reported; the review reports this three-arm comparison but tabulates only compomer failure.

1 finding from 1 review

Metal-free single crowns (full-contour zirconia) vs Composite strip crown

Restoration failure · Children with carious primary teeth

No comparative effect estimate was reported; failure rates were 3.3% and 15%.

1 finding from 1 review

Composite resin with etch-and-rinse (total-etch) adhesion vs Composite resin with self-etch adhesion (same universal adhesive)

Restoration failure · Children with carious primary teeth

No comparative effect estimate was reported; etch-and-rinse had a higher tabulated failure rate.

1 finding from 1 review

Composite resin vs High-viscosity GIC and bulk-fill composite resins

Restoration failure · Children with carious primary teeth

No comparative effect estimate was reported; tabulated failure rates ranged from 0% to 2.9%.

1 finding from 1 review

Periodontal treatment: scaling and root planing (SRP) plus advice vs Community care: advice only

Serum high-sensitivity C-reactive protein (hs-CRP) · Patients with cardiovascular disease and chronic periodontitis
1 finding from 1 review

Glass carbomer vs Resin-modified glass-ionomer cement + composite resin (modified open-sandwich restoration)

Restoration failure · Children with carious primary teeth

No comparative effect estimate was reported; glass carbomer had the highest tabulated failure range.

1 finding from 1 review

GIC with cavity conditioner vs GIC without cavity conditioner

Restoration failure · Children with carious primary teeth

No comparative effect estimate was reported; the review states cavity conditioner did not improve success.

1 finding from 1 review

HVGIC bilayer insertion and surface coating protocols vs Alternative HVGIC insertion and surface coating protocols

Restoration failure · Children with carious primary teeth

No comparative effect estimate was reported; bilayer placement and nanofilled coating were described as improving survival.

1 finding from 1 review

Er,Cr:YSGG laser (erbium,chromium:yttrium-scandium-gallium-garnet) vs Placebo (placebo laser or placebo agent) or no treatment

Changes in intensity of pain (VAS 0 to 10) tested through air blast stimuli · Patients aged above 12 years with self-reported tooth hypersensitivity confirmed on clinical evaluation

Er,Cr:YSGG laser (erbium,chromium:yttrium-scandium-gallium-garnet) led to lower changes in intensity of pain (VAS 0 to 10) tested through air blast… compared with placebo (placebo laser or placebo agent) or no treatment; GRADE not reported.

3 findings from 1 review

Nd:YAG laser vs Placebo (placebo laser or placebo agent) or no treatment

Changes in intensity of pain (VAS 0 to 10) tested through air blast stimuli · Patients aged above 12 years with self-reported tooth hypersensitivity confirmed on clinical evaluation

Nd:YAG laser (neodymium-doped:yttrium-aluminum-garnet) showed no clear difference in changes in intensity of pain (VAS 0 to 10) tested through air blast… compared with placebo (placebo laser or placebo agent) or no treatment; GRADE not reported.

3 findings from 1 review

Diode laser, visible red (630 nm to 700 nm) vs Placebo (placebo laser or placebo agent) or no treatment

Changes in intensity of pain (VAS 0 to 10) tested through tactile stimuli · Patients aged above 12 years with self-reported tooth hypersensitivity confirmed on clinical evaluation

Diode laser, visible red (630 nm to 700 nm) led to lower changes in intensity of pain (VAS 0 to 10) tested through tactile… compared with placebo (placebo laser or placebo agent) or no treatment; GRADE not reported.

3 findings from 1 review

Diode laser, near infrared (700 nm to 850 nm) vs Placebo (placebo laser or placebo agent) or no treatment

Changes in intensity of pain (VAS 0 to 10) tested through air blast stimuli · Patients aged above 12 years with self-reported tooth hypersensitivity confirmed on clinical evaluation

Diode laser, near infrared (700 nm to 850 nm) led to lower changes in intensity of pain (VAS 0 to 10) tested through air blast… compared with placebo (placebo laser or placebo agent) or no treatment; GRADE not reported.

3 findings from 1 review