What do systematic reviews say?

Resin composite restorations containing antibacterial agents vs Non-antibacterial containing composite restorations

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Antibacterial agents in composite restorations for the prevention of dental caries 2013 · Cochrane All outcomes
  No studies were included in this review, as we were unable to find any trials directly comparing antibacterial containing composites to other active interventions or controls.
  0 studies
  No studies found

Direct resin composite veneer vs Indirect resin composite veneer

• Direct versus indirect veneer restorations for intrinsic dental stains 2004 · Cochrane All outcomes

  2 years
  Meijering 1998 (data by restoration, not pooled; no statistical analysis possible). Failures over 2-year follow-up: direct resin composite (n=69) 4 absolute and 14 relative failures; indirect resin composite (n=54) 7…
  1 study · 123 participants
  GRADE not reported

Indirect veneer with no incisal edge reduction vs Indirect veneer with incisal edge reduction (1.5 mm plus short palatal bevel)

• Direct versus indirect veneer restorations for intrinsic dental stains 2004 · Cochrane All outcomes

  2 years
  Meijering 1998 (Table 3): survival percentages by preparation type at 2 years (original/functional/overall) - no incisal edge reduction 98/97/95; incisal reduction 95/90/87. No statistical comparison performed.
  1 study
  GRADE not reported

Direct resin composite veneer vs Porcelain (indirect) veneer

• Direct versus indirect veneer restorations for intrinsic dental stains 2004 · Cochrane All outcomes

  2 years
  Meijering 1998 (data by restoration, not pooled; no statistical analysis possible). Failures over 2-year follow-up: direct resin composite (n=69) 4 absolute and 14 relative failures; porcelain (n=56) 0 absolute and 3…
  1 study · 125 participants
  GRADE not reported

Ceramic inlays (all types) vs Gold inlay

Ceramic inlays (all types) showed no clear difference in failure rate (longevity) at 5 years compared with gold inlay; GRADE not reported.

• Ceramic inlays for restoring posterior teeth 2003 · Cochrane All outcomes

  5 years
  OR 1.12 [0.08, 15.0]
  1 study · 20 participants
  GRADE not reported

Oral cytology (e.g. OralCDx brush biopsy, CytID) vs Reference standard: examination and clinical evaluation by a physician/clinician with specialist knowledge or training (long-term follow-up accepted for those screened negative)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Clinical assessment for the detection of oral cavity cancer and potentially malignant disorders in apparently healthy… 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes
  Oral cytology (e.g. brush biopsy) was added to the list of eligible index tests in this update; no eligible studies evaluated it (evidence gap).
  0 studies
  No studies found

COE with blood/salivary (biomarker) analysis vs Reference standard: examination and clinical evaluation by a physician/clinician with specialist knowledge or training (long-term follow-up accepted for those screened negative)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Clinical assessment for the detection of oral cavity cancer and potentially malignant disorders in apparently healthy… 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes
  There were no eligible studies evaluating blood or salivary sample analysis (which tests for the presence of biomarkers for OPMD and OSCC).
  0 studies
  No studies found

Remote screening of the oral cavity (mobile application/telemedicine) vs Reference standard: examination and clinical evaluation by a physician/clinician with specialist knowledge or training (long-term follow-up accepted for those screened negative)

• Clinical assessment for the detection of oral cavity cancer and potentially malignant disorders in apparently healthy… 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes
  Summary of findings 4 (no pooled analysis): specificity 0.99 (95% CI 0.99 to 1.00), 1.00 (95% CI 0.91 to 1.00), and 0.72 (95% CI 0.63 to 0.80) across the 3 studies. Certainty VERY LOW.
  3 studies · 3600 participants
  Very low

Remote screening of the oral cavity (mobile application/telemedicine) vs Reference standard: examination and clinical evaluation by a physician/clinician with specialist knowledge or training (long-term follow-up accepted for those screened negative)

• Clinical assessment for the detection of oral cavity cancer and potentially malignant disorders in apparently healthy… 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes
  Summary of findings 4 (no pooled analysis): sensitivity 0.85 (95% CI 0.81 to 0.88), 0.82 (95% CI 0.57 to 0.96), and 0.94 (95% CI 0.70 to 1.00) across the 3 studies. Prevalence 12.2% to 30.9%. Certainty VERY LOW.
  3 studies · 3600 participants
  Very low

COE with light-based detection (e.g. ViziLite Plus, Microlux/DL, VELscope, Identafi 3000) vs Reference standard: examination and clinical evaluation by a physician/clinician with specialist knowledge or training (long-term follow-up accepted for those screened negative)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Clinical assessment for the detection of oral cavity cancer and potentially malignant disorders in apparently healthy… 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes
  There were no eligible studies evaluating light-based detection.
  0 studies
  No studies found

COE with vital rinsing (toluidine blue/tolonium chloride) vs Reference standard: examination and clinical evaluation by a physician/clinician with specialist knowledge or training (long-term follow-up accepted for those screened negative)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Clinical assessment for the detection of oral cavity cancer and potentially malignant disorders in apparently healthy… 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes
  No eligible study evaluated COE with vital rinse as a stand-alone screen against the reference standard in this version.
  0 studies
  No studies found

Mouth self-examination (MSE) vs Reference standard: examination and clinical evaluation by a physician/clinician with specialist knowledge or training (long-term follow-up accepted for those screened negative)

• Clinical assessment for the detection of oral cavity cancer and potentially malignant disorders in apparently healthy… 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes
  Summary of findings 2 (no pooled analysis): specificity 1.00 (95% CI 1.00 to 1.00), 0.95 (95% CI 0.88 to 0.99), 0.44 (95% CI 0.20 to 0.70), and 0.54 (95% CI 0.37 to 0.69) across the 4 studies. Certainty VERY LOW.
  4 studies · 35059 participants
  Very low

Visual examination (VE) vs Reference standard: examination and clinical evaluation by a physician/clinician with specialist knowledge or training (long-term follow-up accepted for those screened negative)

• Clinical assessment for the detection of oral cavity cancer and potentially malignant disorders in apparently healthy… 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes
  Summary of findings 1 (no pooled analysis): for the 7 low-prevalence studies specificity ranged from 0.94 (95% CI 0.88 to 0.97) to 0.99 (95% CI 0.98 to 1.00); for the 3 higher-prevalence studies specificity ranged from…
  10 studies · 25568 participants
  Low

Mouth self-examination (MSE) vs Reference standard: examination and clinical evaluation by a physician/clinician with specialist knowledge or training (long-term follow-up accepted for those screened negative)

• Clinical assessment for the detection of oral cavity cancer and potentially malignant disorders in apparently healthy… 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes
  Summary of findings 2 (no pooled analysis): sensitivity 0.18 (95% CI 0.13 to 0.24), 0.09 (95% CI 0.04 to 0.15), 0.43 (95% CI 0.24 to 0.63), and 0.33 (95% CI 0.10 to 0.65) across the 4 studies. Prevalence 0.6% to 63.6%.…
  4 studies · 35059 participants
  Very low

Visual examination (VE) vs Reference standard: examination and clinical evaluation by a physician/clinician with specialist knowledge or training (long-term follow-up accepted for those screened negative)

• Clinical assessment for the detection of oral cavity cancer and potentially malignant disorders in apparently healthy… 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes
  Summary of findings 1 (no pooled analysis): for the 7 studies with low prevalence (<=10%) sensitivity ranged from 0.50 (95% CI 0.07 to 0.93) to 0.99 (95% CI 0.97 to 1.00); for the 3 higher-prevalence studies…
  10 studies · 25568 participants
  Low