Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

4,315 questions · 23,557 findings · 2,311 reviews

No studies found 4,183 · 17.8%GRADE not reported 3,930 · 16.7%Very low 5,371 · 22.8%Low 5,787 · 24.6%Moderate 3,320 · 14.1%High 966 · 4.1%

Ranked among the 5,000 newest matching findings; add words or filters to narrow the search.

Co-presence of Veillonella spp. with Streptococcus mutans vs Streptococcus mutans acidogenesis without Veillonella spp. modulation (conceptual)

Streptococcus mutans acid (lactic acid) production and cariogenic potential · Oral biofilm of children/individuals at risk of dental caries

The review concludes that Veillonella spp. may modulate (often inhibit) S. mutans acid production and compete for lactate substrate, potentially reducing cariogenesis, but the evidence is narrative and ungraded.

1 finding from 1 review

AI algorithms (predominantly CNN/deep learning) as index test vs Dental expert / visual-tactile clinical assessment (reference standard)

Sensitivity · Patients undergoing dental caries detection on dental images (teeth/surfaces across imaging modalities)

AI algorithms have high pooled sensitivity (0.85) for detecting dental caries; ungraded, with very high heterogeneity (I2>95%) and evidence of publication bias.

1 finding from 1 review

AI algorithms (predominantly CNN/deep learning) as index test vs Dental expert / visual-tactile clinical assessment (reference standard)

Specificity · Patients undergoing dental caries detection on dental images (teeth/surfaces across imaging modalities)

AI algorithms have high pooled specificity (0.90) for detecting dental caries; ungraded, with very high heterogeneity (I2>95%).

1 finding from 1 review

AI algorithms (predominantly CNN/deep learning) as index test vs Dental expert / visual-tactile clinical assessment (reference standard)

Area under the summary ROC curve · Patients undergoing dental caries detection on dental images (teeth/surfaces across imaging modalities)

The area under the summary ROC curve for AI caries detection is 0.86, indicating high overall diagnostic accuracy; ungraded.

1 finding from 1 review

AI algorithms (predominantly CNN/deep learning) as index test vs Dental expert / visual-tactile clinical assessment (reference standard)

Positive likelihood ratio · Patients undergoing dental caries detection on dental images (teeth/surfaces across imaging modalities)

A positive AI test raises caries probability substantially (LR+ 10.44; positive post-test probability 79%); ungraded.

1 finding from 1 review

AI algorithms (predominantly CNN/deep learning) as index test vs Dental expert / visual-tactile clinical assessment (reference standard)

Log diagnostic odds ratio · Patients undergoing dental caries detection on dental images (teeth/surfaces across imaging modalities)

AI algorithms show strong pooled discriminative accuracy for dental caries (log DOR 4.37; DOR 70.9); ungraded.

1 finding from 1 review

AI algorithms (predominantly CNN/deep learning) as index test vs Dental expert / visual-tactile clinical assessment (reference standard)

Negative likelihood ratio · Patients undergoing dental caries detection on dental images (teeth/surfaces across imaging modalities)

A negative AI test lowers caries probability substantially (LR- 0.17; negative post-test probability 6%); ungraded.

1 finding from 1 review

Adhesive precoated (APC) flash-free brackets (minimal excess adhesive) vs Conventional brackets

White spot lesions assessed by laser fluorescence (DIAGNOdent) · Patients undergoing fixed orthodontic (fixed appliance) treatment (adolescents and adults, ages 12 to 35)

Two studies found adhesive flash-free brackets did not clinically reduce enamel demineralization or white spot lesions versus conventional brackets, though they reduced pathogenic bacteria (ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Dental examinations at three-month intervals and preventive treatments vs usual care

MRONJ (incidence proportion) · Men with metastatic prostate cancer receiving intravenous zoledronic acid (at risk of MRONJ)

It is very uncertain whether dental examinations at three-month intervals and preventive treatments changes MRONJ (incidence proportion) compared with standard care (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Criteria-based screening (dentist refers using pre-established criteria) vs Traditional screening

Dental attendance · primary or secondary school pupils

It is very uncertain whether criteria-based screening (dentist refers using pre-established… changes dental attendance compared with traditional screening (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Probiotics vs placebo or control

Dental caries in children · Adolescents (12-18 years) without background systemic disease

In a subgroup analysis, probiotics reduced the number of caries in adolescents (MD -0.60, 95%CI -0.92 to -0.28; p-interaction=0.02); not GRADE-rated.

1 finding from 1 review

Probiotics vs placebo or control

Gingival index (GI) · Children and/or adolescents (<18 years) without background systemic disease

Probiotics probably make little to no difference to the gingival index versus control (MD 0.04, 95%CI -0.18 to 0.27; low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Probiotics vs placebo or control

Lactobacillus count (CFU/mL) · Children and/or adolescents (<18 years) without background systemic disease

Probiotics may make little to no difference to Lactobacillus count versus control (MD -0.78 CFU/mL, 95%CI -1.65 to 0.09; very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Probiotics vs placebo or control

Salivary pH · Children and/or adolescents (<18 years) without background systemic disease

Probiotics may make little to no difference to salivary pH versus control (MD -0.12 pH units, 95%CI -0.72 to 0.48; very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Probiotics vs placebo or control

Dental caries in children · Children and/or adolescents (<18 years) without background systemic disease

Probiotics probably make little to no difference to the number of dental caries versus control (MD -0.24 carious pieces, 95%CI -0.72 to 0.23; low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Probiotics vs placebo or control

Streptococcus mutans count · Children and/or adolescents (<18 years) without background systemic disease

Probiotics probably reduce Streptococcus mutans count versus control (MD -0.40 CFU/mL, 95%CI -0.57 to -0.24; moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Probiotics vs placebo or control

Gingival bleeding (various bleeding indices) · Children and/or adolescents (<18 years) without background systemic disease

Only one trial (Borrell 2021) reported the bleeding index, showing slightly more bleeding with probiotics (MD 0.10, 95%CI 0.02 to 0.18); not pooled or GRADE-rated.

1 finding from 1 review

Probiotics vs placebo or control

Plaque index (PI) / oral hygiene · Children and/or adolescents (<18 years) without background systemic disease

Probiotics may make little to no difference to the bacterial plaque index versus control (MD 0.21, 95%CI -0.55 to 0.96; very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Probiotics vs placebo or control

Streptococcus viridans count (CFU/mL) · Children and/or adolescents (<18 years) without background systemic disease

Only one trial (Mishra 2014) reported S. viridans count, showing a higher count with probiotics (MD 0.40 CFU/mL, 95%CI 0.33 to 0.47); not pooled or GRADE-rated.

1 finding from 1 review