Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

145 questions · 163 findings · 11 reviews

No studies found 9 · 5.5%GRADE not reported 112 · 68.7%Very low 42 · 25.8%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%

CD4+ T-cell count below 250 cells/mm3 vs CD4+ T-cell count >=250 cells/mm3

HIV-related oral lesions · Children and adolescents living with HIV on ART/HAART

Lower CD4+ counts (<250 cells/mm3) were associated with roughly twice the odds of HIV-related oral lesions in two studies (not pooled).

1 finding from 1 review
  • Oral Health Status of Children and Adolescents Living with HIV Undergoing Antiretroviral Therapy: A Systematic Review… 2022 All outcomes
    Cross-sectional (case-control; single time point) · HIV pediatric/ART clinics, AIDS centers, and hospitals in Brazil, India, Saudi Arabia, and West Africa (Cote d'Ivoire, Mali, Senegal) · CD4+ T-cell count <250 cells/mm3 vs higher
    CLWH with CD4+ <250 cells/mm3 were about twice as likely to have HIV-related oral lesions: Baghirath 2013 OR 1.916 (95% CI 0.613 to 2.513), p=0.001; Divakar 2015 OR 1.999 (95% CI 0.129 to 3.688), p=0.001. Not pooled.
    2 studies
    GRADE not reported

Conventional GIC vs Compomer and glass carbomer

Restoration failure · Children with carious primary teeth

No comparative effect estimate was reported; cumulative failure was highest for glass carbomer.

1 finding from 1 review

High-viscosity glass-ionomer cement (HVGIC) restoration (conventional restorative approach) vs Resin composite restoration

Restoration failure · Children with carious primary teeth

No comparative effect estimate was reported; composite resin outperformed HVGIC in the review narrative.

1 finding from 1 review

HVGIC with chlorhexidine cavity disinfectant vs HVGIC without cavity disinfectant

Restoration failure · Children with carious primary teeth

No comparative effect estimate was reported; cavity disinfectant did not affect success in the review narrative.

1 finding from 1 review

Amalgam vs Light-cured compomer (polyacid-modified composite resin)

Restoration failure · Children with carious primary teeth

No comparative effect estimate was reported; the review described similar clinical performance.

1 finding from 1 review

Compomer (Dyract) vs HVGIC Equia Forte and Chemfil Rock

Restoration failure · Children with carious primary teeth

No comparative effect estimate was reported; compomer had more favorable retention in the review narrative.

1 finding from 1 review

ART/HAART duration <3 years vs ART/HAART duration >=3 years

Oral candidiasis · Children and adolescents living with HIV on ART/HAART

Oral candidiasis prevalence differed by ART duration (OR 17.93, 95% CI 3.69 to 83.12).

1 finding from 1 review

Resin-modified glass ionomer cement for bonding orthodontic brackets vs Compomer and composite resin

Restoration failure · Children with carious primary teeth

No comparative effect estimate was reported; failure rates were tabulated by arm.

1 finding from 1 review

Flowable bulk-fill composite resin vs Light-cured compomer (polyacid-modified composite resin)

Restoration failure · Children with carious primary teeth

No comparative effect estimate was reported; both arms had 0% failure.

1 finding from 1 review

Composite resin with a beveled cavity margin vs Composite resin with no bevel (butt-joint margin)

Restoration failure · Children with carious primary teeth

No comparative effect estimate was reported; no bevel had twice the failure rate in the review narrative.

1 finding from 1 review

Hall technique vs Compomer restoration or non-restorative caries treatment

Restoration failure · Children with carious primary teeth

No comparative effect estimate was reported; the review reports this three-arm comparison but tabulates only compomer failure.

1 finding from 1 review

Metal-free single crowns (full-contour zirconia) vs Composite strip crown

Restoration failure · Children with carious primary teeth

No comparative effect estimate was reported; failure rates were 3.3% and 15%.

1 finding from 1 review

Composite resin with etch-and-rinse (total-etch) adhesion vs Composite resin with self-etch adhesion (same universal adhesive)

Restoration failure · Children with carious primary teeth

No comparative effect estimate was reported; etch-and-rinse had a higher tabulated failure rate.

1 finding from 1 review

Composite resin vs High-viscosity GIC and bulk-fill composite resins

Restoration failure · Children with carious primary teeth

No comparative effect estimate was reported; tabulated failure rates ranged from 0% to 2.9%.

1 finding from 1 review