Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

2,745 questions · 4,389 findings · 203 reviews · Oral Health

No studies found 39 · 0.9%GRADE not reported 3,844 · 87.6%Very low 198 · 4.5%Low 137 · 3.1%Moderate 134 · 3.1%High 37 · 0.8%

Malocclusion vs No malocclusion

Poor oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) · Adolescents (10-19 years)

Malocclusions probably have a negative effect on OHRQoL in adolescents, after adjustment for confounders (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Amalgam (AAG) vs Resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC)

Secondary caries · Patients requiring dental restoration; deciduous (primary) teeth

Over 2 or more years in deciduous teeth, amalgam probably had a higher risk of secondary caries than RMGIC (RR 2.46, 95% CI 1.42-4.27; moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Irradiated carious dentin vs Non-irradiated carious dentin

MMP-20 expression · Human ex vivo carious dentin (head/neck radiotherapy)

MMP-20 shows no difference between irradiated and non-irradiated carious dentin; the evidence is very uncertain (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Herbal mouthwash vs Blank control

Plaque · People undergoing orthodontic treatment (any age; 9 to 34 years in included studies)

Herbal mouthwash reduced several plaque-related indices, but certainty is very low.

1 finding from 1 review

Giomer (GIONOMER) vs Resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC)

Secondary caries · Patients requiring dental restoration; deciduous (primary) teeth

Over 2 or more years in deciduous teeth, the difference in secondary caries between giomer and RMGIC is uncertain (RR 1.66, 95% CI 0.49-5.61; low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

CPP-ACP enamel pre-treatment for prevention of white spot lesions before bonding metallic orthodontic brackets vs No enamel pre-treatment before bonding, or treatment with another material

Shear bond strength (SBS) of metallic orthodontic brackets · Extracted permanent human teeth (enamel); sound or demineralized

CPP-ACP enamel pre-treatment before bonding did not significantly affect the shear bond strength of metallic orthodontic brackets (MD 1.163 MPa, 95% CI -0.321 to 2.648; ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Gum chewing (sugar-free) vs No chewing gum

Salivary flow rate (unstimulated) · Elderly (>60 years) and medically compromised adults with xerostomia / dry mouth

In elderly and medically compromised people with xerostomia, chewing sugar-free gum daily for two or more weeks produces a small but statistically significant increase in unstimulated whole salivary flow rate versus no gum (SMD 0.44, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.66); certainty of evidence was not formally graded.

1 finding from 1 review

38% SDF (one-time application) vs Information unavailable

New coronal carious lesions or fillings on permanent (first) molars (caries prevention) · Children with dental caries in permanent (first) molars

One-time 38% SDF gave a 57% prevented fraction for caries in children's permanent first molars (single study; ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

OHI + 38% SDF (applied every 12 months) vs oral health instruction plus water

new root-surface carious lesions or restorations · community-dwelling older adults with root caries

SDF had a 28% preventative fraction at 24 months; no pooled estimate or GRADE rating was reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Biodentine vs Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA)

Overall success (composite of clinical and radiographic success) · Patients with carious pulp exposure in permanent teeth undergoing DPC or pulpotomy

MTA and Biodentine performed comparably for clinical and radiographic success (5 RCTs, not pooled; ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

CPP-ACP vs Placebo or no active treatment

Remineralization / reduction in lesion severity (change in QLF, laser fluorescence, or lesion area) · Patients with white spot lesions / early caries lesions (WSLs/ECLs), including orthodontic and non-orthodontic lesions, active caries…

CPP-ACP did not differ significantly from control (SMD -0.18, 95% CI -0.49 to 0.14); certainty of evidence not assessed (no GRADE).

1 finding from 1 review

Early childhood caries / severe early childhood caries vs Caries-free controls

Risk of malnutrition (younger children, 6 months to 6 years) · Children aged ≤6 years (early childhood)

One Nepalese cross-sectional study found no significant association between severe ECC and malnutrition risk in children under 6 (mean difference 0.13, p=0.609); ungraded.

1 finding from 1 review

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

Overall success (composite of clinical and radiographic success) · Patients with carious pulp exposure in mature permanent teeth

MTA increases clinical and radiographic success versus CH in mature teeth (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Gum chewing (sugar-free) vs No chewing gum

Dry mouth (xerostomia) · Elderly (>60 years) and medically compromised adults with xerostomia / dry mouth

Gum chewing was linked with improved self-reported xerostomia / dry mouth in most studies (12 of 17 positive, 5 no effect); heterogeneous instruments precluded meta-analysis.

1 finding from 1 review

Chlorhexidine mouthwash vs Blank control

Total bacteria (colony count) · Orthodontic patients (any age) undergoing orthodontic treatment (mostly fixed appliances)

Chlorhexidine mouthwash may reduce total bacteria colony counts versus blank control in the short term, but the evidence is very uncertain (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

CPP-ACFP vs Placebo or no active treatment

Remineralization / reduction in lesion severity (change in QLF, laser fluorescence, or lesion area) · Patients with white spot lesions / early caries lesions (WSLs/ECLs), including orthodontic and non-orthodontic lesions, active caries…

CPP-ACFP versus control gave SMD -0.42 (95% CI -0.84 to 0.00); the review classed CPP-ACFP as statistically significant versus control although the reported CI upper limit is at the null (0.00); certainty of evidence not assessed (no GRADE).

1 finding from 1 review