Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

211 questions · 428 findings · 24 reviews

No studies found 1 · 0.2%GRADE not reported 346 · 80.8%Very low 14 · 3.3%Low 24 · 5.6%Moderate 43 · 10%High 0 · 0%

Digital bitewing radiography, sensor-based (CCD/CMOS) vs Direct visual examination after tooth separation or bioptical cavity preparation

Diagnostic accuracy for proximal caries detection (dentin detection level) · Patients with permanent posterior teeth, proximal surfaces assessed clinically (in vivo)

Under in vivo conditions, sensor-based digital bitewing radiography had a pooled sensitivity of 0.96 (95% CI 0.91, 0.98) for proximal caries detection at the dentin detection level; ungraded.

4 findings from 1 review
Show 1 more finding

Visual examination (VE) vs Direct visual examination after tooth separation or bioptical cavity preparation

Diagnostic accuracy for proximal caries detection (dentin detection level) · Patients with permanent posterior teeth, proximal surfaces assessed clinically (in vivo)

Under in vivo conditions, visual examination had a pooled specificity of 0.76 (95% CI 0.11, 0.99) for proximal caries detection at the dentin detection level; ungraded.

4 findings from 1 review
Show 1 more finding

Visual examination (VE) vs Histological validation of dental tissues (gold standard)

Diagnostic accuracy for proximal caries detection (dentin detection level) · Extracted permanent posterior teeth with proximal surfaces (in vitro)

Under in vitro conditions, visual examination had a summary ROC AUC of 0.85 for proximal caries detection at the dentin detection level; ungraded.

4 findings from 1 review
Show 1 more finding

Colour clinical examination (visual shade categorization: yellow, light brown, dark brown, black) vs Hardness clinical examination (tactile texture categorization: soft, medium/leathery, hard)

Discriminant power for caries severity: effect size (f) for microbial load (log10 CFU) between lesion categories · Patients with dentine carious lesions (deciduous/permanent teeth; children and adults)

The weighted effect size favoured hardness (f=2.62) over colour (f=0.46) for discriminating microbial load, supporting hardness as the more reliable examination (ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Colour clinical examination (visual shade categorization: yellow, light brown, dark brown, black) vs Hardness clinical examination (tactile texture categorization: soft, medium/leathery, hard)

Discriminant power for caries severity: mean difference in log10 CFU (microbial load) between lesion categories · Patients with dentine carious lesions (deciduous/permanent teeth; children and adults)

For yellow-vs-other colour compared with soft-vs-harder hardness, hardness was significantly the more discriminant test (pooled WMD -3.87, 95% CI -4.46 to -2.87; ungraded).

6 findings from 1 review
Show 3 more findings

Conventional restorative treatment with resin composite (CRT-RC) vs Sealing

Treatment success (caries lesion arrest or restoration survival) · Children with dentin caries lesions in the outer half of dentin on occlusal surfaces of primary teeth

Conventional restorative treatment with resin composite gave a higher treatment success rate than resin sealing for outer-half occlusal dentin caries in primary teeth (2 studies; low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Bulk-fill composite resin with 7-second dentine etching vs Bulk-fill composite resin with 15-second dentine etching

Treatment failure (annual failure rate) · Children (aged 5-8 years) with Class-II caries in primary molars, no pulp therapy

Etching dentine for 7 s rather than 15 s lowered bulk-fill composite failure (5.8% vs 16.9% annual failure) in one RCT; low quality of evidence (ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Hydraulic calcium silicate cements (HCSC; MTA or Biodentine) vs Calcium hydroxide (CH)

Overall success (composite of clinical and radiographic success) · Vital permanent teeth (mature or immature) with deep or extremely deep caries and asymptomatic pulp or reversible pulpitis, undergoing…

At 36-month follow-up, HCSC show higher odds of clinical and radiographic success than CaOH (OR 2.34, 95% CI 1.43 to 3.84; ungraded subgroup).

3 findings from 1 review

Dental cavity liner (e.g. calcium hydroxide, glass ionomer, resin-modified glass ionomer, or flowable composite) placed under the restoration vs No cavity liner or a different liner material

Restoration longevity · Patients with deep caries lesions in mature or immature permanent (posterior) teeth, with no symptoms or reversible pulpitis

Cavity liners may make little or no difference to restoration longevity (high success across groups; low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Dental cavity liner (e.g. calcium hydroxide, glass ionomer, resin-modified glass ionomer, or flowable composite) placed under the restoration vs No cavity liner or a different liner material

Treatment failure · Patients with deep caries lesions in mature or immature permanent (posterior) teeth, with no symptoms or reversible pulpitis

The evidence is very uncertain about the effect of cavity liners on treatment failure; no significant difference between lined and unlined (or differently lined) restorations was found (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Dental cavity liner (e.g. calcium hydroxide, glass ionomer, resin-modified glass ionomer, or flowable composite) placed under the restoration vs No cavity liner or a different liner material

Postoperative hypersensitivity (POH), patient-reported (VAS score) · Patients with deep caries lesions in mature or immature permanent (posterior) teeth, with no symptoms or reversible pulpitis

The evidence is very uncertain whether cavity liners reduce postoperative hypersensitivity; no significant difference was found overall (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Dental cavity liner (e.g. calcium hydroxide, glass ionomer, resin-modified glass ionomer, or flowable composite) placed under the restoration vs No cavity liner or a different liner material

Tooth survival · Patients with deep caries lesions in mature or immature permanent (posterior) teeth, with no symptoms or reversible pulpitis

Cavity liners may make little or no difference to tooth survival (99.4% survival across groups; low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Dental cavity liner (e.g. calcium hydroxide, glass ionomer, resin-modified glass ionomer, or flowable composite) placed under the restoration vs No cavity liner or a different liner material

Oral health-related quality of life · Patients with deep caries lesions in mature or immature permanent (posterior) teeth, with no symptoms or reversible pulpitis

No included study reported oral health-related quality of life (a planned outcome), so no evidence is available.

1 finding from 1 review

Partial pulpotomy vs Full (complete) pulpotomy

Radiographic hard-tissue (dentine) barrier formation · Mature permanent (molar) teeth with deep caries and symptoms indicative of irreversible pulpitis (spontaneous pain)

Radiographic hard-tissue barrier formation did not differ significantly between partial and full pulpotomy (single RCT; ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Prior SDF application without a rinsing step vs No prior SDF application (untreated dentin control)

Immediate bond strength (MPa) · Glass-ionomer cement bonded to caries-affected dentin (in vitro)

SDF pretreatment without a rinsing step does not affect glass-ionomer cement bond strength to caries-affected dentin (MD 0.26 MPa, 95% CI -0.30 to 0.82; ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Prior application of silver diamine fluoride (SDF), with or without a rinsing step vs No prior SDF application (untreated dentin control)

Immediate bond strength (MPa) · Dental adhesives/resin composite bonded to dentin (in vitro), sound or caries-affected

Prior SDF application significantly reduces the immediate bond strength of adhesives to dentin overall (MD 7.12 MPa favoring untreated dentin, 95% CI 1.38 to 12.85; ungraded), with very high heterogeneity (I2=98%).

1 finding from 1 review