What do systematic reviews say?

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

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

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

Primary school-based behavioural intervention (both oral hygiene and dietary components) vs No treatment (or delayed treatment)

• Primary school‐based behavioural interventions for preventing caries 2013 · Cochrane All outcomes
  Worthington 2001 reported changes in oral health knowledge and skills: improvement was apparent in both intervention and control groups at the 4-month follow-up (phase one) but greater in the intervention group (34%…
  1 study
  GRADE not reported

Package of oral health education/promotion including oral hygiene advice for pregnant women, mothers, infants and young children, plus dietary and feeding practice advice for infants and young children vs usual care

• Interventions with pregnant women, new mothers and other primary caregivers for preventing early childhood caries 2024 · Cochrane All outcomes
  Two trials (Batliner 2018; Plutzer 2008) provided information on changes in mother oral health behaviours (other data): some benefit in favour of the intervention.
  2 studies
  GRADE not reported

Package of oral health education/promotion including oral hygiene advice for pregnant women, mothers, infants and young children, plus dietary and feeding practice advice for infants and young children vs usual care

• Interventions with pregnant women, new mothers and other primary caregivers for preventing early childhood caries 2024 · Cochrane All outcomes
  Three trials (Muhoozi 2017; Pereira 2021; Yu 2021) reported changes in child oral health behaviours (other data): some benefit in favour of the intervention.
  3 studies
  GRADE not reported

Oral health education/promotion (oral hygiene advice plus diet and feeding practice advice) combined with clinical treatment for mother's dentition (basic restorative and preventive; 1 trial included CHX varnish application) vs usual care

• Interventions with pregnant women, new mothers and other primary caregivers for preventing early childhood caries 2024 · Cochrane All outcomes
  One trial (Shenoy 2022) reported changes in child oral health behaviours (other data): some benefit in favour of the intervention.
  1 study
  GRADE not reported

COE with vital rinsing (toluidine blue/tolonium chloride) vs Conventional oral examination (COE) alone

COE with vital rinsing (toluidine blue/tolonium chloride) showed no clear difference in detection rate of oral pre-malignant and malignant lesions after… compared with conventional oral examination (COE) alone (moderate certainty).

• Clinical assessment for the detection of oral cavity cancer and potentially malignant disorders in apparently healthy… 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes
  Rate ratio 1.05 [0.74, 1.41]
  1 study · 7975 participants
  Moderate

Resin-modified glass ionomer fissure sealant plus oral health education vs Fluoride varnish plus oral health education

Resin-modified glass ionomer fissure sealant plus oral health… showed no clear difference in change in DMF increment on occlusal surfaces of first permanent molars compared with fluoride varnish plus oral health education; GRADE not reported.

• Pit and fissure sealants versus fluoride varnishes for preventing dental decay in the permanent teeth of children and… 2020 · Cochrane All outcomes

  24 months · low caries risk
  MD 0.07 [-0.03, 0.17]
  1 study
  GRADE not reported
• Pit and fissure sealants versus fluoride varnishes for preventing dental decay in the permanent teeth of children and… 2020 · Cochrane All outcomes

  24 months · high caries risk
  MD 0.23 [0.02, 0.44]
  1 study
  GRADE not reported

Ozone applied to the carious lesion (10 or 40 seconds), with a fluoride reductant and oral hygiene/preventive advice vs No ozone, with a fluoride reductant and oral hygiene/preventive advice (as in the intervention group)

• Ozone therapy for the treatment of dental caries 2004 · Cochrane All outcomes

  To 6 months
  Baysan 2003 stated that no adverse events were reported to 6 months; no information was provided by Abu-Naba'a 2003 or Abu-Naba'a 2003pilot.
  1 study
  GRADE not reported

Ozone applied to the carious lesion (10 or 40 seconds), with a fluoride reductant and oral hygiene/preventive advice vs No ozone, with a fluoride reductant and oral hygiene/preventive advice (as in the intervention group)

• Ozone therapy for the treatment of dental caries 2004 · Cochrane All outcomes
  Abu-Naba'a 2003 reported participants' state of anxiety, comparing ozone treatment with traditional dental interventions (injection, drilling, filling); because no participant was randomised between ozone and drilling…
  1 study
  GRADE not reported

Ozone applied to the carious lesion (10 or 40 seconds), with a fluoride reductant and oral hygiene/preventive advice vs No ozone, with a fluoride reductant and oral hygiene/preventive advice (as in the intervention group)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Ozone therapy for the treatment of dental caries 2004 · Cochrane All outcomes
  Data were not provided by any study on the number of lesions requiring restorations to 6 months or later; no data on any further conventional treatment or other dental interventions.
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

Ozone applied to the carious lesion (10 or 40 seconds), with a fluoride reductant and oral hygiene/preventive advice vs No ozone, with a fluoride reductant and oral hygiene/preventive advice (as in the intervention group)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Ozone therapy for the treatment of dental caries 2004 · Cochrane All outcomes
  No data were provided in any of the included trials on costs.
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

Ozone applied to the carious lesion (10 or 40 seconds), with a fluoride reductant and oral hygiene/preventive advice vs No ozone, with a fluoride reductant and oral hygiene/preventive advice (as in the intervention group)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Ozone therapy for the treatment of dental caries 2004 · Cochrane All outcomes
  No data were provided in any of the included trials on pain.
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

Ozone applied to the carious lesion (10 or 40 seconds), with a fluoride reductant and oral hygiene/preventive advice vs No ozone, with a fluoride reductant and oral hygiene/preventive advice (as in the intervention group)

• Ozone therapy for the treatment of dental caries 2004 · Cochrane All outcomes

  6 and 12 months
  No consistent trend of benefit or harm following ozone was seen across the outcome measures in any of the three studies; analyses were conducted at the lesion level (not independent of the person), so data were not…
  3 studies · 137 participants
  GRADE not reported

Ozone applied to the carious lesion (10 or 40 seconds), with a fluoride reductant and oral hygiene/preventive advice vs No ozone, with a fluoride reductant and oral hygiene/preventive advice (as in the intervention group)

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

• Ozone therapy for the treatment of dental caries 2004 · Cochrane All outcomes
  No data were provided in any of the included trials on time to intervention.
  Studies not reported
  No studies found

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

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

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