evidencegaps
Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

2,890 questions · 3,917 findings · 272 reviews · All outcomes

Sort:Best matchNewestHighest certaintyDownload CSV
No studies found 429 · 11%GRADE not reported 2,657 · 67.8%Very low 512 · 13.1%Low 219 · 5.6%Moderate 80 · 2%High 20 · 0.5%

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

Self-assembling peptide P11-4 vs CPP-ACFP

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…

Self-assembling peptide P11-4 did not differ significantly from CPP-ACFP (SMD -0.13, 95% CI -0.68 to 0.42); certainty of evidence not assessed (no GRADE).

1 finding from 1 review

Resin-modified glass-ionomer cement (RMGIC) restoration vs Amalgam, compomer, composite resin, or glass carbomer

Treatment failure (annual failure rate) · Children with previously unrestored, vital carious lesions in primary teeth (no pulp therapy); aged 1.5-11 years

RMGIC had an annual failure rate of 1.9-16.9% (4 RCTs), lower than amalgam and similar to compomer/composite; low quality of evidence (ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Chlorhexidine gel (0.2%, intrasocket) vs placebo or no treatment

Adverse events · Adults (>18 years) having permanent tooth extraction (predominantly mandibular third molars)
1 finding from 1 review
  • Local interventions for the management of alveolar osteitis (dry socket) 2022 · Cochrane All outcomes
    Follow-up: median 7 days
    No adverse events were reported. Six trials (673 participants) reported no adverse events from the use of chlorhexidine gel; one study (Rubio-Palau 2015) reported gastrointestinal discomfort (30, 18%), dizziness (10,…
    7 studies
    GRADE not reported

Machine-learning algorithms for dental caries detection vs Different machine-learning algorithms for caries prediction

Caries detection accuracy on intraoral images · Dental images of human beings

The review reported 93.3% accuracy for caries detection on intraoral images in Kühnisch et al. (Ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Caries experience measurement (mean D(M)FS, enamel lesions included) vs None (descriptive prevalence review; subgroup analyses by urban/rural status, country and year)

Dental caries · European adolescents aged 12–19 years

Mean caries experience (DMFS) in subgroup 'Examination type: full-mouth' was 6.56 (95% CI 4.55 to 9.47; 12 studies).

11 findings from 1 review
Show 8 more findings

Consumption of xylitol chewing gum by women (mothers) vs No chewing gum

Plaque · Adults and children (predominantly adults; one study in children), with natural dentition

Xylitol sugar-free gum significantly reduced plaque quantity versus no-gum/control (SMD -0.743, 95% CI -1.148 to -0.338), with high heterogeneity (I2 = 86.0%; ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Amalgam restoration vs Composite resin, compomer, conventional glass-ionomer cement, or resin-modified GIC (head-to-head RCT comparators)

Treatment failure (annual failure rate) · Children with previously unrestored, vital carious lesions in primary teeth (no pulp therapy); aged 1.5-11 years

Amalgam restorations in primary teeth showed a wide annual failure rate (1-28%) across 4 RCTs; the evidence is of low quality (high risk of bias; ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Caries distribution assessment (individual, tooth and surface levels) vs None (descriptive prevalence review; subgroup analyses by urban/rural status, country and year)

Caries distribution (individual/tooth/surface level) · European adolescents aged 12–19 years

Caries distribution was skewed at individual, tooth and surface levels and too heterogeneous to meta-analyze (narrative synthesis of 11 studies; not GRADE-rated).

1 finding from 1 review

High-viscosity glass-ionomer cement (HVGIC) restoration (conventional restorative approach) vs Compomer, composite resin, or another HVGIC

Treatment failure (annual failure rate) · Children with previously unrestored, vital carious lesions in primary teeth (no pulp therapy); aged 1.5-11 years

High-viscosity GIC had a wide annual failure rate (2.9-25.6%) and was outperformed by compomer/composite in some trials (3 RCTs); low quality of evidence (ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Machine-learning algorithms for dental caries detection vs Different machine-learning algorithms for caries prediction

detection of proximal caries · Dental images of human beings

The review reported 85.6% accuracy for proximal caries in Casalegno et al. (Ungraded).

2 findings from 1 review

Machine-learning algorithms for dental caries detection vs Different machine-learning algorithms for caries prediction

Occlusal caries detection accuracy · Dental images of human beings

The review reported 66.7% accuracy for the worst class in Moutselos et al. (Ungraded).

4 findings from 1 review
Show 1 more finding

Machine-learning algorithms for dental caries detection vs Different machine-learning algorithms for caries prediction

Dental caries detection accuracy · Dental images of human beings

The review reported 70% accuracy for dental caries detection in Mayank et al. (Ungraded).

3 findings from 1 review

Gum chewing (sugar-free) vs No chewing gum

Plaque · Adults and children (predominantly adults; one study in children), with natural dentition

Sugar-free chewing gum significantly reduced plaque quantity versus no-gum/control (SMD -0.778, 95% CI -1.167 to -0.390), with high heterogeneity (I2 = 86.6%) and no GRADE rating (ungraded).

2 findings from 1 review

Enamel caries quantification (DeS/DeT within total D(M)FS/D(M)FT) vs None (descriptive prevalence review; subgroup analyses by urban/rural status, country and year)

Enamel caries proportion · European adolescents aged 12–19 years

Enamel caries made up about half of total caries experience (pooled proportion 0.50, 95% CI 0.39 to 0.65; 7 studies; higher in 12–15 than 16–19-year-olds; not GRADE-rated).

3 findings from 1 review

Metal-reinforced glass-ionomer cement (MRGIC) restoration vs Conventional GIC

Treatment failure (annual failure rate) · Children with previously unrestored, vital carious lesions in primary teeth (no pulp therapy); aged 1.5-11 years

Metal-reinforced GIC had a high annual failure rate (29.9%) in a single RCT; low quality of evidence (ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Compomer (C) vs Amalgam, RMGIC, HVGIC, composite resin, bulk-fill composite resin, another compomer, or alternative caries management

Treatment failure (annual failure rate) · Children with previously unrestored, vital carious lesions in primary teeth (no pulp therapy); aged 1.5-11 years

Compomer had an annual failure rate of 0-14.7% (7 RCTs), comparable to amalgam/RMGIC/composite and better than high-viscosity GIC; low quality of evidence (ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

38% silver diamine fluoride vs No treatment / other preventive agents (GIC, 5% NaF varnish)

Caries arrest · Children with dentine carious lesions (ICDAS 4-5) in primary teeth

A second meta-analysis reported odds ratios of 2.44 to 3.63 favouring 38% SDF over fluoride varnish/water for caries arrest (ungraded).

2 findings from 1 review

Conventional GIC vs Amalgam or metal-reinforced GIC

Treatment failure (annual failure rate) · Children with previously unrestored, vital carious lesions in primary teeth (no pulp therapy); aged 1.5-11 years

Conventional GIC had an annual failure rate of 7.6-16.6% (2 RCTs) and failed more than amalgam in one trial; low quality of evidence (ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review