Side effects · Dentate adults aged 16 years or older (excluding orthodontic patients and those with severe periodontal disease)
1 finding from 1 review
Not estimable (5 studies). Adverse effects were assessed in five studies, but they used different outcome measures, so meta-analysis was not appropriate. The main harm identified was soft-tissue trauma to the gingival…
5 studies
GRADE not reported
Gingivitis · Dentate adults aged 16 years or older (excluding orthodontic patients and those with severe periodontal disease)
Flossing plus toothbrushing (self-performed; manual or automated… led to lower gingivitis (Gingival Index, 0-3 scale; SMD) compared with toothbrushing alone (with or without a negative-control/placebo rinse); GRADE not reported.
3 findings from 1 review
SMD -0.41 [-0.68, -0.14]
6 studies · 656 participants
GRADE not reported
SMD -0.36 [-0.66, -0.05]
7 studies · 489 participants
Very low
SMD -0.72 [-1.09, -0.35]
4 studies · 564 participants
GRADE not reported
Fluorosis (adverse effect; % of children with fluorotic teeth) · Children and adolescents aged 16 years or less
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
Economic and resource cost of flossing · Dentate adults aged 16 years or older (excluding orthodontic patients and those with severe periodontal disease)
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
Periodontitis (clinical attachment loss) · Dentate adults aged 16 years or older (excluding orthodontic patients and those with severe periodontal disease)
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
Plaque and gingivitis scores · Children and adolescents aged 16 years or less
1 finding from 1 review
Bad breath (halitosis) · Dentate adults aged 16 years or older (excluding orthodontic patients and those with severe periodontal disease)
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
Fluorosis (adverse effect; % of children with fluorotic teeth, questionable to severe) · Children and adolescents aged 16 years or less
1 finding from 1 review
% of children with fluorotic teeth (questionable to severe), follow-up 55 months. Assumed risk 32/212 = 15%; corresponding risk 40/202 = 20% (APF once a day) and 43/197 = 22% (APF twice a day). Relative effect: Not…
1 study · 611 participants
Very low
Calculus · Dentate adults aged 16 years or older (excluding orthodontic patients and those with severe periodontal disease)
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
Quality of life · Dentate adults aged 16 years or older (excluding orthodontic patients and those with severe periodontal disease)
The review found no eligible studies for this question.
1 finding from 1 review
Restoration failure · Children aged 12 years or younger with tooth decay involving at least one tooth in the primary dentition, symptomatic or symptom free
Aesthetic (resin-veneered) crowns showed no clear difference in restoration failure at 6 months compared with conventional metal (stainless steel) crowns; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Marginal integrity (cervical) failures at 24 months · Children aged 12 years or younger with tooth decay involving at least one tooth in the primary dentition, symptomatic or symptom free
Compomer (Dyract) led to lower marginal integrity (cervical) failures at 24 months compared with amalgam (Tytin); GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Surface texture failures at 24 months · Children aged 12 years or younger with tooth decay involving at least one tooth in the primary dentition, symptomatic or symptom free
Compomer (Dyract) showed no clear difference in surface texture failures at 24 months compared with amalgam (Tytin); GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Occlusion · Children aged 12 years or younger with tooth decay involving at least one tooth in the primary dentition, symptomatic or symptom free
Aesthetic (resin-veneered) crowns led to lower occlusion at 6 months compared with conventional metal (stainless steel) crowns; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Cervical gaps on bitewing X-rays at 24 months · Children aged 12 years or younger with tooth decay involving at least one tooth in the primary dentition, symptomatic or symptom free
Compomer (Dyract) showed no clear difference in cervical gaps on bitewing X-rays at 24 months compared with amalgam (Tytin); GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Proximal contact at 6 months · Children aged 12 years or younger with tooth decay involving at least one tooth in the primary dentition, symptomatic or symptom free
Aesthetic (resin-veneered) crowns led to lower proximal contact at 6 months compared with conventional metal (stainless steel) crowns; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Marginal integrity of restoration · Children aged 12 years or younger with tooth decay involving at least one tooth in the primary dentition, symptomatic or symptom free
Aesthetic (resin-veneered) crowns led to lower marginal integrity at 6 months compared with conventional metal (stainless steel) crowns; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Marginal integrity (occlusal) failures at 24 months · Children aged 12 years or younger with tooth decay involving at least one tooth in the primary dentition, symptomatic or symptom free
Compomer (Dyract) showed no clear difference in marginal integrity (occlusal) failures at 24 months compared with amalgam (Tytin); GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Radiolucencies on bitewing X-rays at 24 months · Children aged 12 years or younger with tooth decay involving at least one tooth in the primary dentition, symptomatic or symptom free
Compomer (Dyract) showed no clear difference in radiolucencies on bitewing X-rays at 24 months compared with amalgam (Tytin); GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Replacement (failure) of Class II restoration at 12 months · Children aged 12 years or younger with tooth decay involving at least one tooth in the primary dentition, symptomatic or symptom free
Resin-modified glass ionomer (Vitremer) showed no clear difference in replacement (failure) of Class II restoration at 12 months compared with amalgam; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review