Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

174 questions · 207 findings · 18 reviews · Dental caries

No studies found 3 · 1.4%GRADE not reported 131 · 63.3%Very low 17 · 8.2%Low 29 · 14%Moderate 27 · 13%High 0 · 0%

Dental cavity liner (e.g. calcium hydroxide, glass ionomer, resin-modified glass ionomer, or flowable composite) placed under the restoration vs No liner (resin-based composite bonded directly to the tooth)

Postoperative hypersensitivity (POH), patient-reported (VAS score) · Adults or children with a Class I or Class II resin-based composite restoration in a permanent posterior tooth

Dental cavity liner (e.g. calcium hydroxide, glass ionomer,… led to lower postoperative hypersensitivity (POH), patient-reported (VAS score) compared with no liner (resin-based composite bonded directly to the tooth); GRADE not reported.

2 findings from 1 review

Dental cavity liner (e.g. calcium hydroxide, glass ionomer, resin-modified glass ionomer, or flowable composite) placed under the restoration vs No liner (resin-based composite bonded directly to the tooth)

Adverse events · Adults or children with a Class I or Class II resin-based composite restoration in a permanent posterior tooth

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Dental cavity liner (e.g. calcium hydroxide, glass ionomer, resin-modified glass ionomer, or flowable composite) placed under the restoration vs No cavity liner or a different liner material

Restoration longevity · Patients with deep caries lesions in mature or immature permanent (posterior) teeth, with no symptoms or reversible pulpitis

Cavity liners may make little or no difference to restoration longevity (high success across groups; low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Dental cavity liner (e.g. calcium hydroxide, glass ionomer, resin-modified glass ionomer, or flowable composite) placed under the restoration vs No cavity liner or a different liner material

Treatment failure · Patients with deep caries lesions in mature or immature permanent (posterior) teeth, with no symptoms or reversible pulpitis

The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of cavity liners on treatment failure; no significant difference between lined and unlined (or differently lined) restorations was found (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Dental cavity liner (e.g. calcium hydroxide, glass ionomer, resin-modified glass ionomer, or flowable composite) placed under the restoration vs No cavity liner or a different liner material

Postoperative hypersensitivity (POH), patient-reported (VAS score) · Patients with deep caries lesions in mature or immature permanent (posterior) teeth, with no symptoms or reversible pulpitis

The evidence is very uncertain whether cavity liners reduce postoperative hypersensitivity; no significant difference was found overall (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Dental cavity liner (e.g. calcium hydroxide, glass ionomer, resin-modified glass ionomer, or flowable composite) placed under the restoration vs No cavity liner or a different liner material

Tooth survival · Patients with deep caries lesions in mature or immature permanent (posterior) teeth, with no symptoms or reversible pulpitis

Cavity liners may make little or no difference to tooth survival (99.4% survival across groups; low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Dental cavity liner (e.g. calcium hydroxide, glass ionomer, resin-modified glass ionomer, or flowable composite) placed under the restoration vs No cavity liner or a different liner material

Oral health-related quality of life · Patients with deep caries lesions in mature or immature permanent (posterior) teeth, with no symptoms or reversible pulpitis

No included study reported oral health-related quality of life (a planned outcome), so no evidence is available.

1 finding from 1 review

Dental cavity liner (e.g. calcium hydroxide, glass ionomer, resin-modified glass ionomer, or flowable composite) placed under the restoration vs No cavity liner or a different liner material

Secondary prevention of caries · Patients with deep caries lesions in mature or immature permanent (posterior) teeth, with no symptoms or reversible pulpitis

Cavity liners may make little or no difference to secondary caries prevention (~100% prevention across groups; low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Orthodontic adhesive containing quaternary ammonium resin monomer + 40% n-ACP vs Conventional/control orthodontic adhesive (e.g., Transbond XT) or negative control

Calcium and phosphate ion release · Human enamel specimens around orthodontic brackets (in vitro)

In vitro, an n-ACP-containing adhesive significantly increased calcium and phosphate ion release up to 42 days in a single study (ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Orthodontic adhesives containing bioactive glass (BAG) particles/nanoparticles (including fluoride- or Ga-doped BAG) vs Conventional/control orthodontic adhesive (e.g., Transbond XT) or negative control

Ion release (fluoride, calcium, phosphate) · Human enamel specimens around orthodontic brackets (in vitro)

In vitro, among the 5 BAG ion-release studies only Ga-doped BAG (GaMBN, Song [31]) reported a significant increase (phosphate, up to 14 days); a general significant fluoride/calcium/phosphate increase across all 5 is not supported (ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Er:YAG laser irradiation of sound enamel before acid challenge vs No anticaries intervention (untreated enamel)

Calcium ions released in acidic solution · Human tooth enamel specimens, sound/intact (in vitro)

Er:YAG laser irradiation did not significantly change calcium ions released into acidic solution versus untreated control (SMD -0.40, 95% CI -0.96 to 0.15; 6 in vitro studies, I2=80%; ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) vs Calcium hydroxide (CH)

Postoperative pain (patient-reported) · Vital permanent teeth (mature or immature) with deep or extremely deep caries and asymptomatic pulp or reversible pulpitis, undergoing…

The effect of material choice (MTA vs CaOH) on postoperative pain is unclear: two small studies used different methods and reported contradictory results, so no meta-analysis was performed (ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Biodentine vs Calcium hydroxide (CH)

Overall success (composite of clinical and radiographic success) · Vital permanent teeth (mature or immature) with deep or extremely deep caries and asymptomatic pulp or reversible pulpitis, undergoing…

Biodentine and calcium hydroxide did not differ significantly in clinical and radiographic success (OR 3.14, 95% CI 0.91 to 10.86; ungraded subgroup analysis).

1 finding from 1 review

Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) vs Calcium hydroxide (CH)

Overall success (composite of clinical and radiographic success) · Vital permanent teeth (mature or immature) with deep or extremely deep caries and asymptomatic pulp or reversible pulpitis, undergoing…

Mineral trioxide aggregate shows higher odds of clinical and radiographic success than calcium hydroxide (OR 3.05, 95% CI 1.70 to 5.45; ungraded subgroup analysis).

1 finding from 1 review

Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) vs Calcium hydroxide (CH)

Overall success (composite of clinical and radiographic success) · Permanent teeth with carious pulp exposure

In partial pulpotomy, MTA had significantly higher success than calcium hydroxide (OR 2.81; ungraded).

5 findings from 2 reviews · compare the 2 reviews
Show 2 more findings

Hydroxyapatite (e.g., nano-HAp) vs Calcium-based agent

Immediate (24 h) resin-dentin bond strength (MPa) · Artificial caries-affected dentin (ACAD) in extracted permanent human teeth (in vitro)

In the Self-Etch adhesive + chemical ACAD protocol network, HAp vs Calcium showed no significant difference in 24 h bond strength (MD -1.792, 95% CI -7.415 to 3.831; Low certainty).

2 findings from 1 review

Self-assembling/remineralizing peptide (e.g., P11-4, PAA-PASP) vs Calcium phosphate agent (e.g., CPP-ACP, Ca/P-PILP, niobophosphate)

Immediate (24 h) resin-dentin bond strength (MPa) · Artificial caries-affected dentin (ACAD) in extracted permanent human teeth (in vitro)

In the Self-Etch adhesive + chemical ACAD protocol network, Peptide vs Calcium Phosphate showed no significant difference in 24 h bond strength (MD -0.009, 95% CI -4.076 to 4.058; Low certainty).

3 findings from 1 review

Self-assembling/remineralizing peptide (e.g., P11-4, PAA-PASP) vs Calcium-based agent

Immediate (24 h) resin-dentin bond strength (MPa) · Artificial caries-affected dentin (ACAD) in extracted permanent human teeth (in vitro)

In the Self-Etch adhesive + chemical ACAD protocol network, Peptide vs Calcium showed no significant difference in 24 h bond strength (MD 2.654, 95% CI -3.216 to 8.524; Moderate certainty).

2 findings from 1 review

Mesoporous silica (SiO2) vs Calcium-based agent

Immediate (24 h) resin-dentin bond strength (MPa) · Artificial caries-affected dentin (ACAD) in extracted permanent human teeth (in vitro)

In the Self-Etch adhesive + chemical ACAD protocol network, Silica vs Calcium showed no significant difference in 24 h bond strength (MD 1.964, 95% CI -5.802 to 9.730; Moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Flavonoids (e.g., quercetin, proanthocyanidin) vs Calcium phosphate agent (e.g., CPP-ACP, Ca/P-PILP, niobophosphate)

Immediate (24 h) resin-dentin bond strength (MPa) · Artificial caries-affected dentin (ACAD) in extracted permanent human teeth (in vitro)

In the Etch-and-Rinse adhesive + biological ACAD protocol network, Flavonoids showed 12.771 MPa lower 24 h bond strength than Calcium Phosphate (MD -12.771, 95% CI -20.538 to -5.003; Moderate certainty).

2 findings from 1 review