Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

214 questions · 250 findings · 24 reviews

No studies found 50 · 20%GRADE not reported 112 · 44.8%Very low 42 · 16.8%Low 24 · 9.6%Moderate 17 · 6.8%High 5 · 2%

SDF (given at a particular frequency, concentration, or duration) vs SDF (given at a different frequency, concentration, or duration)

Caries arrest · Children and adults (with or without carious lesions)
1 finding from 1 review

SDF (given at a particular frequency, concentration, or duration) vs SDF (given at a different frequency, concentration, or duration)

Aesthetics · Children and adults (with or without carious lesions)
1 finding from 1 review

SDF (given at a particular frequency, concentration, or duration) vs SDF (given at a different frequency, concentration, or duration)

Secondary prevention of caries · Children and adults (with or without carious lesions)

It is very uncertain whether SDF (given at a particular frequency, concentration, or duration) changes secondary prevention of caries compared with SDF (given at a different frequency, concentration, or duration) (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

SDF (given at a particular frequency, concentration, or duration) vs SDF (given at a different frequency, concentration, or duration)

Adverse effects · Children and adults (with or without carious lesions)
1 finding from 1 review

38% SDF (indirect pulp capping) vs Resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC)

Restoration color, marginal staining and luster (esthetics) · Children with deep occlusal caries in young permanent first molars (indirect pulp capping)

RMGIC gave significantly better restoration esthetics than SDF, which caused black staining (p=0.03; ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

38% silver diamine fluoride vs Atraumatic restorative treatment (ART)

Caries/restoration status in permanent molars · Children with dental caries in permanent (first) molars

SDF gave significantly better caries/restoration outcomes than ART over 9 months in children's permanent molars (p=0.004; ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

38% SDF plus oral health education vs oral health instruction plus tonic water

new root-surface carious lesions or restorations · community-dwelling older adults with root caries

SDF had a 62% preventative fraction; no pooled estimate or GRADE rating was reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Sodium fluoride (5% NaF, one-time [Mauro] or every 6 months [Liu]) vs Control (water or unspecified)

New coronal caries in permanent molars (caries prevention) · Children with dental caries in permanent (first) molars

NaF gave a 48% prevented fraction (fissure site) vs water (p<0.002; ungraded).

3 findings from 1 review

38% SDF plus potassium iodide and oral health instruction vs oral health instruction plus tonic water

new root-surface carious lesions or restorations · community-dwelling older adults with root caries

SDF plus potassium iodide had a 52% preventative fraction; no pooled estimate or GRADE rating was reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) sealant (one-time) vs no treatment

New coronal caries in permanent first molars (caries prevention) · Children with dental caries in permanent (first) molars

ART within a brushing programme significantly reduced caries vs control (p<0.01; ungraded).

2 findings from 1 review

2.26% ammonium bifluoride (one-time) vs Control (details reported as unavailable)

New coronal caries in permanent first molars (caries prevention) · Children with dental caries in permanent (first) molars

One-time ammonium bifluoride gave a 56% prevented fraction, similar to SDF (57%) (single study; ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

38% SDF (one-time application) vs inactive control

New coronal carious lesions or fillings on permanent (first) molars (caries prevention) · Children with dental caries in permanent (first) molars

One-time SDF within a brushing programme did not significantly reduce caries vs control (p>0.05; ungraded).

2 findings from 1 review

38% SDF (indirect pulp capping) vs Resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC)

Secondary prevention of caries · children with deep occlusal carious lesions in permanent molars

No significant difference in secondary caries prevention was reported; no effect estimate or GRADE rating was reported.

1 finding from 1 review

38% SDF (indirect pulp capping under resin composite) vs Resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC)

Secondary caries prevention in young permanent first molars · Children with deep occlusal caries in young permanent first molars (indirect pulp capping)

SDF and RMGIC did not differ significantly for secondary caries prevention in young permanent molars (no events; p>0.05; ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

38% SDF plus potassium iodide (KI) (indirect pulp capping) vs Resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC)

Secondary prevention of caries · children with deep occlusal carious lesions in permanent molars

No significant difference in secondary caries prevention was reported; no effect estimate or GRADE rating was reported.

1 finding from 1 review