Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

288 questions · 349 findings · 41 reviews · Dental caries

No studies found 43 · 12.3%GRADE not reported 207 · 59.3%Very low 42 · 12%Low 32 · 9.2%Moderate 22 · 6.3%High 3 · 0.9%

38% silver diamine fluoride vs Fluoride varnish, glass ionomer cement, or placebo

Coronal carious lesions arrest · Children with coronal carious lesions (primary dentition)

Across three reviews, 38% SDF arrested 65 to 91% of coronal lesions in primary teeth, outperforming fluoride varnish (38 to 44%), glass ionomer cement (39 to 82%), and placebo (34%) (ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

1000 or 1100 ppm F toothpaste vs Non-fluoride (0 ppm F) placebo toothpaste

Caries increment, surface index D(M)FS · Adults with mature permanent dentition (aged 18 to 93 years at study start)

1000 or 1100 ppm F toothpaste probably leads to lower caries increment, surface index DMFS compared with non-fluoride (0 ppm F) placebo toothpaste (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

1450 to 1500 ppm F toothpaste vs Non-fluoride (0 ppm F) placebo toothpaste

Proportion developing new caries · Children and adolescents with immature permanent dentition (aged 5 to 16 years at study start)

1450 to 1500 ppm F toothpaste may leads to lower proportion developing new caries compared with non-fluoride (0 ppm F) placebo toothpaste (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Professionally-applied 12,300 ppm F APF foam, every 2 months vs 0 ppm F placebo foam

Number of participants with more severe DLs (severity of DLs) · Orthodontic patients of any age with fixed braces (new DLs assessed at debond)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

CPP-ACP vs Placebo paste without CPP-ACP (fluoride toothpaste control)

Quantitative light-induced fluorescence (QLF), fluorescence loss · Patients (mainly children) with white spot lesions (WSL)

CPP-ACP toothpaste did not differ significantly from placebo paste (fluoride control) for white spot lesion remineralization on QLF (MD 0.08, 95% CI -0.91 to 1.08; ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

2400 to 2800 ppm F toothpaste vs Non-fluoride (0 ppm F) placebo toothpaste

Caries increment, surface index D(M)FS · Children and adolescents with immature permanent dentition (aged 5 to 16 years at study start)

2400 to 2800 ppm F toothpaste may leads to lower caries increment, surface index D(M)FS compared with non-fluoride (0 ppm F) placebo toothpaste (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

12,500 ppm F (NaF/olaflur/dectaflur) amine fluoride gel vs Placebo gel

Adverse effects · Orthodontic patients of any age with fixed braces (new DLs assessed at debond)
1 finding from 1 review

1000 to 1250 ppm F toothpaste vs Non-fluoride (0 ppm F) placebo toothpaste

Caries increment, surface index D(M)FS · Children and adolescents with immature permanent dentition (aged 5 to 16 years at study start)

1000 to 1250 ppm F toothpaste leads to lower caries increment, surface index D(M)FS compared with non-fluoride (0 ppm F) placebo toothpaste (high certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Professionally-applied 12,300 ppm F APF foam, every 2 months vs 0 ppm F placebo foam

Number of participants with new demineralised lesions (DLs) · Orthodontic patients of any age with fixed braces (new DLs assessed at debond)

Professionally-applied 12,300 ppm F APF foam, every 2 months may leads to lower number of participants with new demineralised lesions (DLs) compared with 0 ppm F placebo foam (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

250 ppm F toothpaste vs Non-fluoride (0 ppm F) placebo toothpaste

Caries increment, tooth index D(M)FT · Children and adolescents with immature permanent dentition (aged 5 to 16 years at study start)

250 ppm F toothpaste showed no clear difference in caries increment, tooth index D(M)FT compared with non-fluoride (0 ppm F) placebo toothpaste (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Professionally-applied 12,300 ppm F APF foam, every 2 months vs 0 ppm F placebo foam

Adverse effects · Orthodontic patients of any age with fixed braces (new DLs assessed at debond)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Fluoride varnish vs Non-fluoride (placebo) varnish

Adverse effects · Orthodontic patients of any age with fixed braces (new DLs assessed at debond)
1 finding from 1 review

250 ppm F toothpaste vs Non-fluoride (0 ppm F) placebo toothpaste

Proportion developing new caries · Children and adolescents with immature permanent dentition (aged 5 to 16 years at study start)

250 ppm F toothpaste showed no clear difference in proportion developing new caries compared with non-fluoride (0 ppm F) placebo toothpaste (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Fluoride in dentifrice vs placebo

Caries increment, surface index D(M)FS · Children or adolescents

In the illustrative network meta-regression the SMD for caries increment differed between fluoride in dentifrice and placebo at every displayed randomization year; certainty was not graded.

1 finding from 1 review

Slow-release fluoride device (fluoride glass beads) vs placebo or usual care

Caries increment, surface index D(M)FS · Children with high risk of dental decay

It is very uncertain whether slow-release fluoride device (fluoride glass beads) changes increase in DMFS at 2 years compared with baseline compared with placebo or usual care (control) (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Slow-release fluoride device (fluoride glass beads) vs placebo or usual care

Caries increment, tooth index D(M)FT · Children with high risk of dental decay

It is very uncertain whether slow-release fluoride device (fluoride glass beads) changes increase in DMFT at 2 years compared with baseline compared with placebo or usual care (control) (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review