What do systematic reviews say?

Micro-invasive treatment (proximal sealing or resin infiltration): resin sealant, glass ionomer sealant, polyurethane/adhesive patch, or resin infiltration vs Non-invasive / control treatment

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Micro‐invasive interventions for managing proximal dental decay in primary and permanent teeth 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes
  None of the studies reported on participant or operator perception
  0 studies
  No studies found

Psychological intervention + orthodontic treatment (palatal crib or palatal arch) vs no treatment

• Interventions for the cessation of non‐nutritive sucking habits in children 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes
  Table 3 (adverse outcomes after one month; Haryett 1967), combined psychological plus orthodontic treatment group: reported upset 4/22 (18%); speech difficulty 6/22 (27%); eating difficulty 6/22 (27%); developing…
  1 study
  GRADE not reported

Adhesive/polyurethane sealant patch vs No treatment (both arms received flossing plus fluoride toothpaste)

Adhesive/polyurethane sealant patch showed no clear difference in caries (lesion) progression (radiographic) compared with no treatment (both arms received flossing plus fluoride toothpaste); GRADE not reported.

• Micro‐invasive interventions for managing proximal dental decay in primary and permanent teeth 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes

  12 to 36 months (radiographic follow-up) · Sealant patch
  OR 1.00 [0.14, 7.23]
  1 study
  GRADE not reported

Micro-invasive treatment (proximal sealing or resin infiltration): resin sealant, glass ionomer sealant, polyurethane/adhesive patch, or resin infiltration vs Non-invasive / control treatment

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Micro‐invasive interventions for managing proximal dental decay in primary and permanent teeth 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes
  None of the studies reported on costs for micro-invasive treatment or non-invasive control
  0 studies
  No studies found

Oral cryotherapy (ice chips, ice-cold water, ice cubes or crushed ice held in the mouth during cancer treatment) vs no intervention or control intervention (control)

• Interventions for preventing oral mucositis in patients with cancer receiving treatment: oral cryotherapy 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes

  Radiotherapy to the head and neck
  Oral pain was assessed in this subgroup but the study (Kakoei 2013) did not report details of the scale used, so the data could not be used (no usable estimate).
  1 study
  GRADE not reported
• Interventions for preventing oral mucositis in patients with cancer receiving treatment: oral cryotherapy 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes

  Fluorouracil (5FU) treatment for solid cancers
  MD -1.93 [-2.37, -1.49]
  1 study · 80 participants
  Very low
• Interventions for preventing oral mucositis in patients with cancer receiving treatment: oral cryotherapy 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes

  High-dose melphalan-based treatment prior to HSCT (haematological cancers)
  MD -1.5 [-2.11, -0.89]
  2 studies · 85 participants
  Low

Psychological intervention + palatal arch vs Psychological intervention + palatal crib

Psychological intervention + palatal arch led to lower sucking cessation (short term) compared with psychological intervention + palatal crib; GRADE not reported.

• Interventions for the cessation of non‐nutritive sucking habits in children 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes

  Short term (less than 12 months)
  RR 0.30 [0.13, 0.74]
  1 study · 22 participants
  GRADE not reported

EGFR monoclonal antibody (cetuximab or nimotuzumab) plus standard therapy (radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy) vs Standard therapy alone (radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy)

EGFR monoclonal antibody (cetuximab or nimotuzumab) plus standard… probably leads to lower overall survival compared with standard therapy alone (radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy) (moderate certainty).

• Interventions for the treatment of oral and oropharyngeal cancers: targeted therapy and immunotherapy 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes

  24 to 70 months
  HR 0.82 [0.69, 0.97]
  3 studies · 1421 participants
  Moderate

Micro-invasive treatment (proximal sealing or resin infiltration): resin sealant, glass ionomer sealant, polyurethane/adhesive patch, or resin infiltration vs Non-invasive / control treatment

Micro-invasive treatment (proximal sealing or resin infiltration):… probably leads to lower caries (lesion) progression measured by pairwise reading of… compared with non-invasive measures (e.g. fluoride varnish, flossing/oral hygiene… (moderate certainty).

• Micro‐invasive interventions for managing proximal dental decay in primary and permanent teeth 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes

  18 to 36 months (radiographic follow-up)
  OR 0.31 [0.18, 0.53]
  4 studies
  Moderate
• Micro‐invasive interventions for managing proximal dental decay in primary and permanent teeth 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes

  12 to 36 months (radiographic follow-up)
  OR 0.24 [0.14, 0.41]
  7 studies · 365 participants
  Moderate
• Micro‐invasive interventions for managing proximal dental decay in primary and permanent teeth 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes

  12 to 18 months (radiographic follow-up)
  OR 0.18 [0.06, 0.50]
  3 studies
  Moderate

Non-specific immunotherapy (recombinant interleukin-2 or BCG cell wall preparation) plus standard therapy vs Standard therapy alone (radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy)

• Interventions for the treatment of oral and oropharyngeal cancers: targeted therapy and immunotherapy 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes

  24 to 70 months · BCG cell wall preparation + surgery (Bier 1981)
  BCG-CWP + surgery versus surgery alone: 3-year overall survival 10/10 vs 9/10; too few participants to calculate a hazard ratio (Bier 1981, 24 participants).
  1 study · 24 participants
  GRADE not reported
• Interventions for the treatment of oral and oropharyngeal cancers: targeted therapy and immunotherapy 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes

  24 to 70 months · Recombinant interleukin-2 + surgery (De Stefani 2002)
  HR 0.52 [0.31, 0.87]
  1 study · 201 participants
  Very low

Oral cryotherapy (ice chips, ice-cold water, ice cubes or crushed ice held in the mouth during cancer treatment) vs no intervention or control intervention (control)

Oral cryotherapy (ice chips, ice-cold water, ice cubes or crushed… showed no clear difference in oral mucositis (any severity) compared with control (no treatment or standard/usual oral care, e.g. saline rinse) (low certainty).

• Interventions for preventing oral mucositis in patients with cancer receiving treatment: oral cryotherapy 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes

  High-dose melphalan-based treatment prior to HSCT (haematological cancers)
  RR 0.59 [0.35, 1.01]
  5 studies · 270 participants
  Low
• Interventions for preventing oral mucositis in patients with cancer receiving treatment: oral cryotherapy 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes

  Fluorouracil (5FU) treatment for solid cancers
  RR 0.61 [0.52, 0.72]
  5 studies · 444 participants
  Moderate
• Interventions for preventing oral mucositis in patients with cancer receiving treatment: oral cryotherapy 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes

  Low-dose methotrexate for GVHD prophylaxis after allogeneic HSCT
  RR 0.98 [0.90, 1.07]
  1 study · 122 participants
  Very low

Oral cryotherapy (ice chips, ice-cold water, ice cubes or crushed ice held in the mouth during cancer treatment) vs no intervention or control intervention (control)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Interventions for preventing oral mucositis in patients with cancer receiving treatment: oral cryotherapy 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes

  Fluorouracil (5FU) treatment for solid cancers
  Summary of findings for the main comparison (5FU solid cancers): Duration of hospitalisation (days) - 'No studies assessed this outcome'.
  0 studies
  No studies found
• Interventions for preventing oral mucositis in patients with cancer receiving treatment: oral cryotherapy 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes

  High-dose melphalan-based treatment prior to HSCT (haematological cancers)
  MD -1.39 [-2.97, 0.19]
  2 studies · 123 participants
  Low

Resin sealant (one micro-invasive treatment) vs Resin infiltration alone

• Micro‐invasive interventions for managing proximal dental decay in primary and permanent teeth 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes

  up to 3 years
  Only one study (Martignon 2012) directly compared resin sealant versus resin infiltration; the review could not determine which technique is more advantageous and reported no direct effect estimate for this comparison.
  1 study
  GRADE not reported

Aversive tasting substance applied to digit vs Psychological intervention (habit reversal)

Aversive tasting substance applied to digit showed no clear difference in sucking cessation (short term) compared with psychological intervention (habit reversal); GRADE not reported.

• Interventions for the cessation of non‐nutritive sucking habits in children 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes

  Short term (less than 12 months)
  RR 0.18 [0.03, 1.24]
  1 study · 29 participants
  GRADE not reported

Tyrosine kinase inhibitor (erlotinib, gefitinib or lapatinib) plus standard therapy (radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy) vs Standard therapy alone (radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy)

It is very uncertain whether tyrosine kinase inhibitor (erlotinib, gefitinib or lapatinib) plus… changes overall survival compared with standard therapy alone (radiotherapy or chemoradiotherapy) (very low certainty).

• Interventions for the treatment of oral and oropharyngeal cancers: targeted therapy and immunotherapy 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes

  40 to 60 months
  HR 0.99 [0.62, 1.57]
  2 studies · 271 participants
  Very low

Oral cryotherapy (ice chips, ice-cold water, ice cubes or crushed ice held in the mouth during cancer treatment) vs Chlorhexidine rinse

It is very uncertain whether oral cryotherapy (ice chips, ice-cold water, ice cubes or crushed… changes oral mucositis (any severity) compared with chlorhexidine rinse (very low certainty).

• Interventions for preventing oral mucositis in patients with cancer receiving treatment: oral cryotherapy 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes
  RR 0.97 [0.71, 1.32]
  1 study · 133 participants
  Very low

Oral cryotherapy (ice chips, ice-cold water, ice cubes or crushed ice held in the mouth during cancer treatment) vs Low-dose leucovorin rinse

It is very uncertain whether oral cryotherapy (ice chips, ice-cold water, ice cubes or crushed… changes oral mucositis (any severity) compared with low-dose leucovorin rinse (very low certainty).

• Interventions for preventing oral mucositis in patients with cancer receiving treatment: oral cryotherapy 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes
  RR 0.67 [0.50, 0.90]
  1 study · 118 participants
  Very low

Oral cryotherapy (ice chips, ice-cold water, ice cubes or crushed ice held in the mouth during cancer treatment) vs Low-dose leucovorin rinse

It is very uncertain whether oral cryotherapy (ice chips, ice-cold water, ice cubes or crushed… changes oral mucositis (moderate to severe) compared with low-dose leucovorin rinse (very low certainty).

• Interventions for preventing oral mucositis in patients with cancer receiving treatment: oral cryotherapy 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes
  RR 0.18 [0.01, 3.42]
  1 study · 118 participants
  Very low

Oral cryotherapy (ice chips, ice-cold water, ice cubes or crushed ice held in the mouth during cancer treatment) vs no intervention or control intervention (control)

Oral cryotherapy (ice chips, ice-cold water, ice cubes or crushed… showed no clear difference in oral mucositis (moderate to severe) compared with control (no treatment or standard/usual oral care, e.g. saline rinse) (low certainty).

• Interventions for preventing oral mucositis in patients with cancer receiving treatment: oral cryotherapy 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes

  High-dose melphalan-based treatment prior to HSCT (haematological cancers)
  RR 0.43 [0.17, 1.09]
  5 studies · 270 participants
  Low
• Interventions for preventing oral mucositis in patients with cancer receiving treatment: oral cryotherapy 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes

  Low-dose methotrexate for GVHD prophylaxis after allogeneic HSCT
  RR 1.01 [0.85, 1.20]
  1 study · 122 participants
  Very low
• Interventions for preventing oral mucositis in patients with cancer receiving treatment: oral cryotherapy 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes

  Fluorouracil (5FU) treatment for solid cancers
  RR 0.52 [0.41, 0.65]
  5 studies · 444 participants
  Moderate

Micro-invasive treatment (proximal sealing or resin infiltration): resin sealant, glass ionomer sealant, polyurethane/adhesive patch, or resin infiltration vs Non-invasive / control treatment

• Micro‐invasive interventions for managing proximal dental decay in primary and permanent teeth 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes

  1 to 3 years
  The four studies that measured adverse events reported no adverse events after micro-invasive treatment (no events in either arm)
  4 studies
  GRADE not reported

Micro-invasive treatment (proximal sealing or resin infiltration): resin sealant, glass ionomer sealant, polyurethane/adhesive patch, or resin infiltration vs Non-invasive / control treatment

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Micro‐invasive interventions for managing proximal dental decay in primary and permanent teeth 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes
  No studies reported on caries measured as change in decayed, missing and filled (DMF/dmf) figures at surface, tooth or whole mouth level
  0 studies
  No studies found