Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

1,692 questions · 2,586 findings · 180 reviews · Dental caries

No studies found 194 · 7.5%GRADE not reported 1,937 · 74.9%Very low 248 · 9.6%Low 136 · 5.3%Moderate 52 · 2%High 19 · 0.7%

38% SDF solution (applied biannually) vs 12% SDF solution (applied biannually)

Arrest of advanced cavitated carious lesions on any coronal surface · Preschool children with advanced cavitated carious lesions on any coronal surface (primary teeth)

38% SDF solution (applied biannually) was more effective than 12% SDF solution (applied biannually) for arrest or reversal of cavitated coronal carious lesions (RR 1.3, 95% CI 1.21 to 1.41; high certainty).

4 findings from 1 review
Show 1 more finding

38% SDF solution (applied biannually) vs 38% SDF solution (applied annually)

Arrest of advanced cavitated carious lesions on any coronal surface · Preschool children with advanced cavitated carious lesions on any coronal surface (primary teeth)

38% SDF solution (applied biannually) was more effective than 38% SDF solution (applied annually) for arrest or reversal of cavitated coronal carious lesions (RR 1.21, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.3; high certainty).

4 findings from 1 review
Show 1 more finding

30% SDF solution (applied annually) vs 30% SDF solution (once weekly for 3 weeks)

Arrest of advanced cavitated carious lesions on any coronal surface · Preschool children with advanced cavitated carious lesions on any coronal surface (primary teeth)

30% SDF solution (applied annually) probably did not differ from 30% SDF solution (once weekly for 3 weeks) for arrest or reversal of cavitated coronal carious lesions (RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.34; moderate certainty).

3 findings from 1 review

30% SDF solution (applied annually) vs Fluoride varnish

Arrest of advanced cavitated carious lesions on any coronal surface · Preschool children with advanced cavitated carious lesions on any coronal surface (primary teeth)

30% SDF solution (applied annually) was more effective than 5% NaF varnish (once weekly for 3 weeks) for arrest or reversal of cavitated coronal carious lesions (RR 1.41, 95% CI 1.2 to 1.66; high certainty).

3 findings from 1 review

38% silver diamine fluoride vs 12% SDF solution (applied annually)

Arrest of advanced cavitated carious lesions on any coronal surface · Preschool children with advanced cavitated carious lesions on any coronal surface (primary teeth)

38% SDF solution (applied annually) was more effective than 12% SDF solution (applied annually) for arrest or reversal of cavitated coronal carious lesions (RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.16 to 1.4; high certainty).

4 findings from 1 review
Show 1 more finding

12% SDF solution (applied annually) vs 12% SDF solution (applied biannually)

Arrest of advanced cavitated carious lesions on any coronal surface · Preschool children with advanced cavitated carious lesions on any coronal surface (primary teeth)

12% SDF solution (applied annually) did not differ from 12% SDF solution (applied biannually) for arrest or reversal of cavitated coronal carious lesions (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.02; high certainty).

4 findings from 1 review
Show 1 more finding

Silver diamine fluoride (SDF; 30% or 38%) vs Fluoride varnish

Arrest of dentine caries · Preschool children with active dentine caries in primary teeth (mean age 3.4-4.0 years)

Silver diamine fluoride was about 2.5 times more likely than sodium fluoride to arrest dentine caries surfaces at 18 months (pooled OR 2.51, 95% CI 1.25 to 5.10; 2 RCTs), although between-study heterogeneity was high (I2=90.3%); certainty of evidence was not formally graded.

2 findings from 1 review

30% SDF solution (once weekly for 3 weeks) vs Fluoride varnish

Arrest of advanced cavitated carious lesions on any coronal surface · Preschool children with advanced cavitated carious lesions on any coronal surface (primary teeth)

30% SDF solution (once weekly for 3 weeks) probably did not differ from 5% NaF varnish (once weekly for 3 weeks) for arrest or reversal of cavitated coronal carious lesions (RR 0.97, 95% CI 0.8 to 1.18; moderate certainty).

3 findings from 1 review

CPP-ACP vs Pre-treatment (baseline, same group)

Quantitative light-induced fluorescence (QLF), fluorescence loss · Patients (mainly children) with white spot lesions (WSL)

Compared with baseline, CPP-ACP significantly improved white spot lesions on QLF (SMD -0.43, 95% CI -0.79 to -0.07; ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Early extraction of a compromised first permanent molar vs Teeth in the same arch/patient with the first permanent molar present

Caries and/or fillings in adjacent teeth · Children aged 5 to 15 years with a compromised first permanent molar

One study found fewer decayed or filled proximal surfaces but more decayed or filled occlusal surfaces in arches with an extracted first permanent molar; ungraded.

1 finding from 1 review

Metal-free cantilevered FDPs (feldspathic-veneered zirconia) vs Metal-ceramic cantilevered FDPs

Plaque · Adults (18 years or older) needing replacement of one premolar or incisor with a cantilevered fixed dental prosthesis

Metal-free cantilevered FDPs (feldspathic-veneered zirconia) showed no clear difference in plaque index (PI) compared with metal-ceramic cantilevered FDPs; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Metal-free single crowns (full-contour zirconia) vs Cast gold (conventional metal) single crowns

Crown failure · Adults (18 years or older) needing a single crown in the molar or premolar region

It is very uncertain whether metal-free single crowns (full-contour zirconia) changes crown failure compared with cast gold (conventional metal) single crowns (very low certainty).

2 findings from 1 review

Metal-free cantilevered FDPs (feldspathic-veneered zirconia) vs Metal-ceramic cantilevered FDPs

Cantilevered bridge failure · Adults (18 years or older) needing replacement of one premolar or incisor with a cantilevered fixed dental prosthesis
1 finding from 1 review

Metal-free cantilevered FDPs (feldspathic-veneered zirconia) vs Metal-ceramic cantilevered FDPs

Gingival index (GI) · Adults (18 years or older) needing replacement of one premolar or incisor with a cantilevered fixed dental prosthesis

Metal-free cantilevered FDPs (feldspathic-veneered zirconia) showed no clear difference in gingival index (GI) compared with metal-ceramic cantilevered FDPs; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Metal-free cantilevered FDPs (feldspathic-veneered zirconia) vs Metal-ceramic cantilevered FDPs

Cantilevered bridge complications · Adults (18 years or older) needing replacement of one premolar or incisor with a cantilevered fixed dental prosthesis

It is very uncertain whether metal-free cantilevered FDPs (feldspathic-veneered zirconia) changes cantilevered bridge complications compared with metal-ceramic cantilevered FDPs (very low certainty).

2 findings from 1 review

Metal-free single crowns (full-contour zirconia) vs Cast gold (conventional metal) single crowns

Crown complications · Adults (18 years or older) needing a single crown in the molar or premolar region

It is very uncertain whether metal-free single crowns (full-contour zirconia) changes crown complications compared with cast gold (conventional metal) single crowns (very low certainty).

2 findings from 1 review

Metal-free single crowns (full-contour zirconia) vs Cast gold (conventional metal) single crowns

Periodontal/peri-implant status and occlusal wear (secondary outcomes) · Adults (18 years or older) needing a single crown in the molar or premolar region

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Metal-free cantilevered FDPs (feldspathic-veneered zirconia) vs Metal-ceramic cantilevered FDPs

Aesthetics evaluated by the patient · Adults (18 years or older) needing replacement of one premolar or incisor with a cantilevered fixed dental prosthesis

It is very uncertain whether metal-free cantilevered FDPs (feldspathic-veneered zirconia) changes aesthetic evaluation (patient VAS) compared with metal-ceramic cantilevered FDPs (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Higher maternal circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) concentration vs Lower maternal circulating 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25(OH)D) concentration

Small‐for‐gestational age · pregnant women and their infants..

Meta-analysis of observational studies (higher vs lower maternal 25(OH)D) for Small for gestational age: OR 0.54 (95% CI 0.44 to 0.67), statistically significant. Umbrella review outcome-level evidence grade: Suggestive.

1 finding from 1 review