evidencegaps
Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

2,745 questions · 4,389 findings · 203 reviews · Oral Health

Sort:Best matchNewestHighest certaintyDownload CSV
No studies found 39 · 0.9%GRADE not reported 3,844 · 87.6%Very low 198 · 4.5%Low 137 · 3.1%Moderate 134 · 3.1%High 37 · 0.8%

GG genotype of ENAM rs3796704 vs AA + AG genotype of ENAM rs3796704

Dental caries susceptibility · Individuals assessed for dental caries (cases with caries/high caries vs. caries-free or low/very-low-caries controls)

No significant association between GG genotype vs AA + AG genotype of ENAM rs3796704 and dental caries susceptibility (GG vs AA + AG model: OR 1.05, 95% CI 0.66-1.68) in the Control group: Low caries subgroup; certainty not graded.

6 findings from 1 review
Show 3 more findings

Intraglandular botulinum neurotoxin (BoNT) injection vs No BoNT (placebo or pre-treatment baseline)

Salivary Lactobacilli counts · Patients with drooling (sialorrhea) due to neurological disease

Salivary Lactobacilli counts were unchanged in two studies but significantly increased in one study one month after BoNT (ungraded; no effect estimate reported).

1 finding from 1 review
  • Oral health effects of botulinum toxin treatment for drooling: a systematic review. 2020 All outcomes
    Before vs after BoNT injection (2018 study: significant Lactobacilli increase at 1 month; Wu 2011 and 2017 study no change) · Neurological-disease populations with drooling (e.g., cerebral palsy, Parkinson disease, adults with sialorrhea); specialist clinical care
    No statistically significant changes in Lactobacilli CFU counts were reported by Wu et al. or by Tiigimae-Saar 2017. However, the 2018 study found that Lactobacilli CFU counts were significantly increased one month…
    3 studies
    GRADE not reported

CT + TT genotype (T-allele carriers) of AMELX rs946252 vs CC genotype of AMELX rs946252

Dental caries susceptibility · Individuals assessed for dental caries (cases with caries/high caries vs. caries-free or low/very-low-caries controls)

No significant association between CT + TT genotype (T-allele carriers) vs CC genotype of AMELX rs946252 and dental caries susceptibility (CT + TT vs CC model: OR 1.63, 95% CI 0.67-4.01) in the Ethnicity: Caucasian subgroup; certainty not graded.

6 findings from 1 review
Show 3 more findings

T allele of AMELX rs946252 vs C allele of AMELX rs946252

Dental caries susceptibility · Individuals assessed for dental caries (cases with caries/high caries vs. caries-free or low/very-low-caries controls)

No significant association between T allele vs C allele of AMELX rs946252 and dental caries susceptibility (T vs C model: OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.53-1.86) in the Ethnicity: Mixed subgroup; certainty not graded.

6 findings from 1 review
Show 3 more findings

G allele of ENAM rs3796704 vs A allele of ENAM rs3796704

Dental caries susceptibility · Individuals assessed for dental caries (cases with caries/high caries vs. caries-free or low/very-low-caries controls)

No significant association between G allele vs A allele of ENAM rs3796704 and dental caries susceptibility (G vs A model: OR 1.11, 95% CI 0.57-2.15) in the Ethnicity: Mixed subgroup; certainty not graded.

6 findings from 1 review
Show 3 more findings

G allele of ENAM rs1264848 vs A allele of ENAM rs1264848

Dental caries susceptibility · Individuals assessed for dental caries (cases with caries/high caries vs. caries-free or low/very-low-caries controls)

No significant association between G allele vs A allele of ENAM rs1264848 and dental caries susceptibility (G vs A model: OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.65-1.32); certainty not graded.

6 findings from 1 review
Show 3 more findings

AG genotype of ENAM rs3796704 vs AA genotype of ENAM rs3796704

Dental caries susceptibility · Individuals assessed for dental caries (cases with caries/high caries vs. caries-free or low/very-low-caries controls)

No significant association between AG genotype vs AA genotype of ENAM rs3796704 and dental caries susceptibility (AG vs AA model: OR 0.35, 95% CI 0.07-1.74) in the Age group: Children subgroup; certainty not graded.

6 findings from 1 review
Show 3 more findings

CT + TT genotype (T-allele carriers) of AMELX rs17878486 vs CC genotype of AMELX rs17878486

Dental caries susceptibility · Individuals assessed for dental caries (cases with caries/high caries vs. caries-free or low/very-low-caries controls)

The CT + TT genotype (T-allele carriers) of AMELX rs17878486 was associated with increased dental caries risk (CT + TT vs CC model: OR 5.72, 95% CI 2.83-11.59) after excluding the outlier study (Ergoz 2014); certainty not graded.

9 findings from 1 review
Show 6 more findings

AG genotype of LTF rs1126478 vs AA genotype of LTF rs1126478

Dental caries susceptibility · Individuals assessed for dental caries (cases with caries/high caries vs. caries-free or low/very-low-caries controls)

No significant association between AG genotype vs AA genotype of LTF rs1126478 and dental caries susceptibility (AG vs AA model: OR 1.07, 95% CI 0.80-1.43) in the Ethnicity: Asian subgroup; certainty not graded.

5 findings from 1 review
Show 2 more findings

CT + TT genotype (T-allele carriers) of AMELX rs6639060 vs CC genotype of AMELX rs6639060

Dental caries susceptibility · Individuals assessed for dental caries (cases with caries/high caries vs. caries-free or low/very-low-caries controls)

No significant association between CT + TT genotype (T-allele carriers) vs CC genotype of AMELX rs6639060 and dental caries susceptibility (CT + TT vs CC model: OR 1.14, 95% CI 0.56-2.29) in the Ethnicity: Caucasian subgroup; certainty not graded.

3 findings from 1 review

TT genotype of AMELX rs946252 vs CC genotype of AMELX rs946252

Dental caries susceptibility · Individuals assessed for dental caries (cases with caries/high caries vs. caries-free or low/very-low-caries controls)

No significant association between TT genotype vs CC genotype of AMELX rs946252 and dental caries susceptibility (TT vs CC model: OR 1.54, 95% CI 0.61-3.92) in the Age group: Children subgroup; certainty not graded.

6 findings from 1 review
Show 3 more findings

Tooth-coloured direct restorative materials (composite, compomer, giomer, RMGIC, HVGIC, open-sandwich) vs No comparator

Marginal integrity success rate · Children with primary molars requiring proximal (Class II) restorations

After trim-and-fill adjustment the marginal integrity success rate was 0.881 (95% CI 0.832-0.916; ungraded), a negligible change.

2 findings from 1 review