Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

1,954 questions · 2,335 findings · 149 reviews · Oral Health

No studies found 436 · 18.7%GRADE not reported 1,370 · 58.7%Very low 254 · 10.9%Low 173 · 7.4%Moderate 80 · 3.4%High 22 · 0.9%

Orthodontic distalising appliance (intraoral or extraoral) vs no intervention

Movement of upper incisor teeth (mm) · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or less at the start of treatment) undergoing orthodontic treatment to distalise upper first…
1 finding from 1 review

Triclosan/copolymer-containing fluoride toothpaste vs Fluoride toothpaste without triclosan

Coronal caries increment · Children and adults (aged 16 years or less = children, over 16 = adults) without periodontitis at baseline; in practice mostly adults,…

Triclosan/copolymer-containing fluoride toothpaste showed no clear difference in coronal caries increment at 30 to 36 months (decayed filled teeth,… compared with fluoride toothpaste without triclosan (high certainty).

2 findings from 1 review

Intraoral distalising appliance vs Headgear (extraoral appliance)

Movement of upper first molars (mm) · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or less at the start of treatment) undergoing orthodontic treatment to distalise upper first…

It is very uncertain whether intraoral distalising appliance changes movement of upper first molars (mm) compared with headgear (extraoral appliance) (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Visual screening (oral visual inspection) by trained health workers vs No screening

Harms of screening (false-positive/false-negative outcomes) · Apparently healthy adults aged 35 years or older (general population), living in 13 clusters in rural areas of Trivandrum city, Kerala,…

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Fluoride varnish vs placebo or no treatment

Adverse effects / specific side effects (oral allergic reactions, mucosal irritation, adverse symptoms such as nausea, gagging, vomiting) · Children and adolescents aged 16 years or less
1 finding from 1 review

Interdental brushing plus toothbrushing vs Flossing plus toothbrushing

Plaque · Adults, 16 years and older (dentate)

Interdental brushing plus toothbrushing showed no clear difference in plaque (plaque indices; standardised across indices) compared with flossing plus toothbrushing (low certainty).

2 findings from 1 review · compare the 2 reviews

Orthodontic distalising appliance (intraoral or extraoral) vs no intervention

Number of visits to complete treatment · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or less at the start of treatment) undergoing orthodontic treatment to distalise upper first…

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Visual screening (oral visual inspection) by trained health workers vs No screening

Oral cancer incidence · Apparently healthy adults aged 35 years or older (general population), living in 13 clusters in rural areas of Trivandrum city, Kerala,…

Visual screening (oral visual inspection) by trained health workers showed no clear difference in oral cancer incidence compared with no screening; GRADE not reported.

2 findings from 1 review

Primary school-based behavioural intervention (both oral hygiene and dietary components) vs No treatment (or delayed treatment)

Changes in dental attendance · Children aged 4 to 12 years attending primary school
1 finding from 1 review

Interdental brushing plus toothbrushing vs Toothbrushing alone

Gingivitis · Adults, 16 years and older (dentate)

It is very uncertain whether interdental brushing plus toothbrushing changes gingivitis (Loe-Silness gingival index, interproximal; scale 0 to 4) compared with toothbrushing alone (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review · compare the 2 reviews

Intraoral distalising appliance vs Headgear (extraoral appliance)

Non-compliance rate of the intervention · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or less at the start of treatment) undergoing orthodontic treatment to distalise upper first…

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Visual screening (oral visual inspection) by trained health workers vs No screening

Quality of life · Apparently healthy adults aged 35 years or older (general population), living in 13 clusters in rural areas of Trivandrum city, Kerala,…

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Primary school-based behavioural intervention (both oral hygiene and dietary components) vs No treatment (or delayed treatment)

Behavioural outcomes (reported and/or other measures, e.g. data tracking toothbrushes and collecting food wrappers) · Children aged 4 to 12 years attending primary school

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Fluoride varnish vs placebo or no treatment

Proportion of children developing new caries (permanent) · Children and adolescents aged 16 years or less

Fluoride varnish showed no clear difference in proportion of children developing one or more new caries (permanent… compared with placebo or no treatment; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Intraoral distalising appliance vs Another (different) intraoral distalising appliance

Duration of treatment · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or less at the start of treatment) undergoing orthodontic treatment to distalise upper first…
1 finding from 1 review

Visual screening (oral visual inspection) by trained health workers vs No screening

Test performance (sensitivity and specificity) · Apparently healthy adults aged 35 years or older (general population), living in 13 clusters in rural areas of Trivandrum city, Kerala,…
1 finding from 1 review