Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

2,066 questions · 3,346 findings · 178 reviews · Dental caries

No studies found 48 · 1.4%GRADE not reported 2,789 · 83.4%Very low 208 · 6.2%Low 129 · 3.9%Moderate 136 · 4.1%High 36 · 1.1%

Illicit drug use vs People who do not use drugs

DMFT/DMFS index (dental caries experience) · People who use drugs (PWUD): methamphetamine, heroin, opiate, cannabis and cocaine users

Illicit drug use was associated with substantially higher odds of dental caries experience (DMFT) (pooled OR 4.11, 95% CI 2.07-8.15; 7 studies; high heterogeneity I2=90.5%; ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Illicit drug use vs People who do not use drugs

Periodontal disease · People who use drugs (PWUD): methamphetamine, heroin, opiate, cannabis and cocaine users

Illicit drug use was not significantly associated with periodontal disease (pooled OR 1.44, 95% CI 0.80-2.60; 5 studies; substantial heterogeneity I2=85%; ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Low socioeconomic status (>22.4% of the population) vs Not applicable

Dental caries · Adult participants in 25 meta-regression studies

The unadjusted meta-regression coefficient for low socioeconomic status was 10.49365.

2 findings from 1 review

Low polymerization shrinkage resin composite (silorane, ormocer, bulk-fill or other modified-monomer composite) vs Conventional methacrylate-based resin composite

Marginal adaptation (clinically detectable deterioration) · People with permanent posterior teeth restored with class I or II direct restorations

At 60 months, marginal adaptation did not differ significantly between the composites (4 groups; ungraded).

5 findings from 1 review
Show 2 more findings

Human Development Index (HDI) vs Not applicable

Dental caries · Adult participants in 25 meta-regression studies

The Model 1 adjusted meta-regression coefficient for quantitative HDI was -42.94101.

3 findings from 1 review

Low polymerization shrinkage resin composite (silorane, ormocer, bulk-fill or other modified-monomer composite) vs Conventional methacrylate-based resin composite

Secondary caries · People with permanent posterior teeth restored with class I or II direct restorations

No secondary caries was reported at 24 months in any of seven studies, so no meta-analysis was possible (ungraded).

2 findings from 1 review

Low polymerization shrinkage resin composite (silorane, ormocer, bulk-fill or other modified-monomer composite) vs Conventional methacrylate-based resin composite

Marginal discoloration · People with permanent posterior teeth restored with class I or II direct restorations

At 24 months, marginal discoloration did not differ significantly (7 groups; p = 0.77; ungraded).

4 findings from 1 review
Show 1 more finding

Older adults (population mean age >33.4 years) vs Not applicable

Dental caries · Adult participants in 25 meta-regression studies

The unadjusted meta-regression coefficient for older mean age was 4.324884.

2 findings from 1 review

Low polymerization shrinkage resin composite (silorane, ormocer, bulk-fill or other modified-monomer composite) vs Conventional methacrylate-based resin composite

Retention (restoration loss) · People with permanent posterior teeth restored with class I or II direct restorations

At 24 months, retention did not differ significantly between the composites (6 studies; ungraded).

2 findings from 1 review

Low polymerization shrinkage resin composite (silorane, ormocer, bulk-fill or other modified-monomer composite) vs Conventional methacrylate-based resin composite

Postoperative sensitivity · People with permanent posterior teeth restored with class I or II direct restorations

Postoperative sensitivity at 12 months did not differ significantly between low polymerization shrinkage and methacrylate composites (OR 1.65, 95% CI 0.71 to 3.81; Moderate certainty).

2 findings from 1 review

Populations with a lower proportion of university-educated people (<33.78% with university level) vs Not applicable

Dental caries · Adult participants in 25 meta-regression studies

The Model 1 adjusted meta-regression coefficient for lower university education was -4.132903.

2 findings from 1 review

Low level of schooling (>33.60% of the population) vs Not applicable

Dental caries · Adult participants in 25 meta-regression studies

The unadjusted meta-regression coefficient for low schooling was -2.301079.

2 findings from 1 review

Gamified mobile health app vs Conventional method

Plaque control · Children or adolescents

One RCT reported superior plaque control with a gamified mobile health app versus a conventional method; no effect estimate or GRADE assessment was reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Composite strip crown (CSC) with a post (microhybrid composite resin, Amelogen) vs Post type: composite post (CP) vs fibre post (FP) vs reverse metal post (RMP)

Treatment failure (annual failure rate) · Children with severely decayed maxillary primary incisors treated by pulpectomy (non-vital pulp therapy)

Composite strip crowns with composite posts had a low annual failure rate (2.3%) in maxillary primary incisors after pulpectomy (single high-risk-of-bias RCT; low quality of evidence; not GRADE-rated).

3 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

Amalgam vs Preformed metal crown (PMC)

Treatment failure (annual failure rate) · Children with carious primary molars treated by pulpotomy (vital pulp therapy)

Preformed metal crowns had a low annual failure rate (2.4%) in primary molars after pulpotomy, lower than amalgam in the same trial (single high-risk-of-bias RCT; low quality of evidence; not GRADE-rated).

2 findings from 1 review

Selective carious tissue removal (selective excavation, SE) vs Hall Technique (sealing with a preformed metal crown)

Failure of therapy · Children and/or adults with permanent or primary teeth, vital (sensitive) pulps, and cavitated or dentine carious lesions conventionally…

It is very uncertain whether selective carious tissue removal (selective excavation, SE) changes failure of therapy compared with hall Technique (sealing with a preformed metal crown) (very low certainty).

2 findings from 1 review

Non-selective carious tissue removal and conventional restoration (CR) vs Hall Technique (sealing with a preformed metal crown)

Failure of therapy · Children and/or adults with permanent or primary teeth, vital (sensitive) pulps, and cavitated or dentine carious lesions conventionally…

Non-selective carious tissue removal and conventional restoration (CR) may leads to higher failure of therapy compared with hall Technique (sealing with a preformed metal crown) (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review