evidencegaps
Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

172 questions · 216 findings · 32 reviews · Oral Health

Sort:Best matchNewestHighest certaintyDownload CSV
No studies found 24 · 11.1%GRADE not reported 151 · 69.9%Very low 28 · 13%Low 5 · 2.3%Moderate 8 · 3.7%High 0 · 0%

Zinc chloride + sodium chlorite mouthrinse (TriOral) vs Control mouthrinse (containing neither zinc chloride nor sodium chlorite)

Organoleptic assessment (indirect surrogate salivary organoleptic score) · Adults over 18 years with a clinical or self-assessed diagnosis of halitosis, without significant comorbidity (e.g. diabetes) or…
1 finding from 1 review
  • Mouthrinses for the treatment of halitosis 2008 · Cochrane All outcomes
    4 weeks
    Codipilly 2004: only indirect surrogate salivary organoleptic scores were reported (not organoleptic breath scores); no accurate deductions could be made from the reported values.
    1 study
    GRADE not reported

Minimal incision palatopharyngoplasty (MIPP) vs MIPP with additional individualised velopharyngeal surgery (pharyngeal flap or sphincter pharyngoplasty)

Perceptual speech assessment: residual post-operative velopharyngeal insufficiency · Children or adolescents aged 3 years or older with velopharyngeal insufficiency (VPI) associated with non-syndromic submucous cleft palate
1 finding from 1 review
  • Interventions for the management of submucous cleft palate 2008 · Cochrane All outcomes
    3 months post-operatively
    Five (14%) of the participants in group 1 (MIPP) and four (11%) in group 2 had residual post-operative velopharyngeal insufficiency, P > 0.05. The report provided no details on post-operative speech assessment other…
    1 study · 72 participants
    GRADE not reported

Potassium containing toothpaste (5% potassium nitrate) vs Control toothpaste (without potassium)

Subjective assessment of sensitivity · Healthy human adults (18 years or more) with dentine hypersensitivity from exposed root surfaces

Potassium containing toothpaste (5% potassium nitrate) showed no clear difference in subjective assessment of sensitivity compared with control toothpaste (without potassium); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Tongue scraper or tongue cleaner (One Drop Only tongue cleaner; Tongue-Putzer scraper; polystyrene scraper) vs Toothbrush (used to clean the tongue)

Self-expressed (perceived) or organoleptic (human nose) assessment of halitosis · Adults (over 18 years) with a clinical or self-assessed diagnosis of halitosis

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review
  • Tongue scraping for treating halitosis 2006 · Cochrane All outcomes
    Minimum 4 weeks (planned)
    Neither of the two included trials provided any self expressed (perceived) or organoleptic (human nose) assessments of halitosis (the review's primary outcomes); no data.
    0 studies
    No studies found

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

Machine-learning algorithms for dental caries detection vs Dental expert / visual-tactile clinical assessment (reference standard)

Negative post-test probability · Dental images or diagnostic tests for dental caries detection

The negative post-test probability was 6%; certainty was not graded.

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

Machine-learning algorithms for dental caries detection vs Dental expert / visual-tactile clinical assessment (reference standard)

Positive post-test probability · Dental images or diagnostic tests for dental caries detection

The positive post-test probability was 79%; certainty was not graded.

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

Machine-learning algorithms for dental caries detection vs Dental expert / visual-tactile clinical assessment (reference standard)

Diagnostic odds ratio · Dental images or diagnostic tests for dental caries detection

The pooled diagnostic odds ratio was 70.9 (95% CI 44.9 to 111.9) across 20 studies; certainty was not graded.

1 finding from 1 review

Teledentistry (index test): dental caries diagnosis from photographs taken with DSLR or smartphone cameras; store-and-forward vs Visual or clinical examination

Intra-examiner reliability · Children and adults with primary or permanent dentition undergoing dental caries assessment

Intra-examiner reliability ranged from kappa 0.52 to 1.00 across 6 studies; certainty not graded.

1 finding from 1 review

Teledentistry (index test): dental caries diagnosis from photographs taken with DSLR or smartphone cameras; store-and-forward vs Visual or clinical examination

Overall diagnostic accuracy (agreement) · Children and adults with primary or permanent dentition undergoing dental caries assessment

Where reported (about 5 studies, Table 2), overall diagnostic accuracy was high (about 93% to 97.6%); no pooled estimate and certainty not graded.

1 finding from 1 review

Teledentistry (index test): dental caries diagnosis from photographs taken with DSLR or smartphone cameras; store-and-forward vs Visual or clinical examination

Specificity · Children and adults with primary or permanent dentition undergoing dental caries assessment

Across 13 studies, the specificity of teledentistry caries diagnosis ranged from 83% to 100%; no pooled estimate and certainty not graded.

1 finding from 1 review

Teledentistry (index test): dental caries diagnosis from photographs taken with DSLR or smartphone cameras; store-and-forward vs Visual or clinical examination

Positive predictive value · Children and adults with primary or permanent dentition undergoing dental caries assessment

Positive predictive value was reported in 10 studies and varied widely across studies (about 42% to 99%); no pooled estimate and certainty not graded.

1 finding from 1 review

Teledentistry (index test): dental caries diagnosis from photographs taken with DSLR or smartphone cameras; store-and-forward vs Visual or clinical examination

Sensitivity · Children and adults with primary or permanent dentition undergoing dental caries assessment

Across 13 studies, the sensitivity of teledentistry (photographic) caries diagnosis versus visual examination ranged from 48% to 98.3%; the review pooled no estimate and did not grade certainty.

1 finding from 1 review
  • Teledentistry accuracy for caries diagnosis: a systematic review of in-vivo studies using extra-oral photography… 2024 All outcomes
    Cross-sectional diagnostic accuracy (index test vs reference standard, in-vivo) · In-vivo: dental clinics/hospitals, schools, and a juvenile detention facility (11 countries) · Overall (studies reporting sensitivity; narrative synthesis)
    Sensitivity Overall 48% to 98.3% across 13 studies; sensitivity is lesion-stage dependent: Kohara reported <40% for initial/moderate caries (75-100% for extensive) and early enamel lesions were less sensitive
    13 studies
    GRADE not reported

Teledentistry (index test): dental caries diagnosis from photographs taken with DSLR or smartphone cameras; store-and-forward vs Visual or clinical examination

Inter-examiner reliability · Children and adults with primary or permanent dentition undergoing dental caries assessment

Inter-examiner reliability ranged from kappa 0.44 to 0.91 across 13 studies (moderate to almost perfect agreement); certainty not graded.

1 finding from 1 review

Teledentistry (index test): dental caries diagnosis from photographs taken with DSLR or smartphone cameras; store-and-forward vs Visual or clinical examination

Negative predictive value · Children and adults with primary or permanent dentition undergoing dental caries assessment

Negative predictive value was reported in 10 studies and ranged widely across studies (about 31% to 99.5%); no pooled estimate and certainty not graded.

1 finding from 1 review