What do systematic reviews say?

Adhesively bonded amalgam restorations in conventional preparations utilising deliberate retention (all bonding agents) vs Amalgam restoration

• Adhesively bonded versus non‐bonded amalgam restorations for dental caries 2016 · Cochrane All outcomes

  Mean 24 months
  Survival of the restoration - Follow‐up: mean 24 months | Illustrative comparative risks: Assumed risk (Control) See comment; Corresponding risk (Adhesive bonding) See comment | Relative effect (95% CI): Not estimable…
  1 study · 31 participants
  Low

Adhesively bonded amalgam restorations in conventional preparations utilising deliberate retention (all bonding agents) vs Amalgam restoration

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Adhesively bonded versus non‐bonded amalgam restorations for dental caries 2016 · Cochrane All outcomes
  Economic data: direct costs of materials and any reported associated indirect costs - not measured | See comment | See comment | Not estimable | - | See comment | No study addressed this outcome
  0 studies
  No studies found

Adhesively bonded amalgam restorations in conventional preparations utilising deliberate retention (all bonding agents) vs Amalgam restoration

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Adhesively bonded versus non‐bonded amalgam restorations for dental caries 2016 · Cochrane All outcomes
  Adverse effects: any event for which the causal relationship between the event and the amalgam restoration is at least a reasonable possibility - not measured | See comment | See comment | Not estimable | - | See…
  0 studies
  No studies found

Adhesively bonded amalgam restorations in conventional preparations utilising deliberate retention (all bonding agents) vs Amalgam restoration

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Adhesively bonded versus non‐bonded amalgam restorations for dental caries 2016 · Cochrane All outcomes
  Secondary caries, as diagnosed clinically - not measured | See comment | See comment | Not estimable | - | See comment | No study addressed this outcome
  0 studies
  No studies found

Adhesively bonded amalgam restorations in conventional preparations utilising deliberate retention (all bonding agents) vs Amalgam restoration

• Adhesively bonded versus non‐bonded amalgam restorations for dental caries 2016 · Cochrane All outcomes

  Baseline and 24 months
  Post‐insertion sensitivity or pain assessed by a validated pain scale - not measured | See comment | See comment | Not estimable | - | See comment | No study addressed this outcome
  1 study · 31 participants
  GRADE not reported

Resin-based fissure sealant vs Fluoride varnish

• Pit and fissure sealants versus fluoride varnishes for preventing dental decay in the permanent teeth of children and… 2020 · Cochrane All outcomes
  Five studies (Bravo 2005; Chestnutt 2017; Kalnina 2016; Liu 2012; Tagliaferro 2011) considered adverse events; participants detected and reported no adverse events.
  5 studies
  GRADE not reported

Light-cured resin-modified glass ionomer cement vs Light-cured compomer (polyacid-modified composite resin)

• Adhesives for fixed orthodontic bands 2016 · Cochrane All outcomes

  Approximately 12 months (to end of treatment)
  Fricker 1997 was a three-arm split-mouth trial that included a light-cured resin-modified glass ionomer arm (compared with light-cured compomer and chemically cured glass ionomer). Failure rates were reported but not…
  1 study
  GRADE not reported

Chemically cured zinc phosphate cement vs Glass ionomer cement (GIC)

• Adhesives for fixed orthodontic bands 2016 · Cochrane All outcomes

  Approximately 12 months (to end of treatment)
  No meta-analysis (band failure not reported on a per-patient basis). Durning 1989 (69 participants): at ~12 months failure rate 34.78% (zinc phosphate) vs 26% (glass ionomer), P > 0.05; mean survival time 470.9 vs…
  4 studies
  GRADE not reported

Chemically cured glass ionomer cement vs Chemically cured glass phosphonate

• Adhesives for fixed orthodontic bands 2016 · Cochrane All outcomes

  Approximately 12 months (to end of treatment)
  Clark 2003: failure rates presented per adhesive group by number of bands failing (overall proportion of band failure 0.048 for each material); no per-patient failure data. Low band failure rates; insufficient evidence…
  1 study
  GRADE not reported

Chemically cured glass ionomer cement vs Light-cured compomer (polyacid-modified composite resin)

• Adhesives for fixed orthodontic bands 2016 · Cochrane All outcomes

  Approximately 12 months (to end of treatment)
  No meta-analysis. Fricker 1997: failure data not presented in an analysable format (number of bands or failures per person not given). Gillgrass 2001 (98 participants; 140 band pairs): 4 single-band failures with…
  3 studies
  GRADE not reported

9.5% adhesion HP strip vs HP strips

It is very uncertain whether 9.5% adhesion HP strip changes tooth whitening - assessed by the dentist compared with 10% HP strip (very low certainty).

• Home‐based chemically‐induced whitening (bleaching) of teeth in adults 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes

  day 9
  MD -1.50 [-2.33, -0.67]
  1 study · 29 participants
  Very low

Highest plaque category vs Lowest plaque category

The highest plaque category was associated with higher dental caries.

• Oral Health of Children and Adolescents in the United Arab Emirates: A Systematic Review of the Past Decade. 2021 All outcomes

  Highest versus lowest plaque category
  ARR 4.77 [3.67, 6.19]
  1 study · 1036 participants
  GRADE not reported

Fluocinonide in adhesive base vs placebo

Fluocinonide in adhesive base showed no clear difference in physician Global Assessment (clinical signs, complete response) compared with placebo; GRADE not reported.

• Interventions for erosive lichen planus affecting mucosal sites 2012 · Cochrane All outcomes
  RR 4.67 [0.24, 88.96]
  1 study · 27 participants
  GRADE not reported

Fluocinonide in adhesive base vs placebo

Fluocinonide in adhesive base showed no clear difference in partial response (>33% improvement) compared with placebo; GRADE not reported.

• Interventions for erosive lichen planus affecting mucosal sites 2012 · Cochrane All outcomes
  RR 3.00 [0.62, 14.62]
  1 study · 27 participants
  GRADE not reported

Fluocinonide in adhesive base vs placebo

• Interventions for erosive lichen planus affecting mucosal sites 2012 · Cochrane All outcomes
  Table 3 (Side-effects). Voute 1993: no side-effects during the study and follow-up period.
  1 study · 27 participants
  GRADE not reported

Mucoadhesive prednisolone tablet vs Topical triamcinolone acetonide paste

• Interventions for treating oral lichen planus: corticosteroid therapies 2020 · Cochrane All outcomes
  Ghabanchi 2009: data not suitable for quantitative analysis
  1 study
  GRADE not reported

Acetone-based total-etch adhesive vs Calcium hydroxide (CH)

• Pulp treatment for extensive decay in primary teeth 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes

  up to 24 months
  No clinical failure in any participant (Demir 2007); not estimable (direct pulp capping)
  1 study · 40 participants
  GRADE not reported

Acetone-based total-etch adhesive vs Calcium hydroxide (CH)

• Pulp treatment for extensive decay in primary teeth 2018 · Cochrane All outcomes

  up to 24 months
  No radiological failure in any participant; not estimable
  1 study · 40 participants
  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

Highest BMI category (overweight/obese) vs Lowest BMI category (normal weight/underweight)

In the Region: Asian countries subgroup, the BMI (highest vs lowest)-childhood caries association was significant (OR 1.70, 95% CI 1.25 to 2.32; ungraded).

• Childhood obesity in relation to risk of dental caries: a cumulative and dose-response systematic review and… 2024 All outcomes

  Dental examinations of children; 15 countries across Europe, Asia, the Americas and Oceania · Region: Asian countries
  OR 1.70 [1.25, 2.32]
  6 studies
  GRADE not reported
• Childhood obesity in relation to risk of dental caries: a cumulative and dose-response systematic review and… 2024 All outcomes

  Dental examinations of children; 15 countries across Europe, Asia, the Americas and Oceania · Study design: cross-sectional
  OR 1.58 [1.20, 2.08]
  9 studies
  GRADE not reported
• Childhood obesity in relation to risk of dental caries: a cumulative and dose-response systematic review and… 2024 All outcomes

  Dental examinations of children; 15 countries across Europe, Asia, the Americas and Oceania · Adjustment for age: yes
  OR 1.04 [0.84, 1.30]
  6 studies
  GRADE not reported