evidencegaps
Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

17 questions · 19 findings · 8 reviews · Dental caries

Sort:Best matchNewestHighest certaintyDownload CSV
No studies found 1 · 5.3%GRADE not reported 15 · 78.9%Very low 3 · 15.8%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%

Rubber dam vs Isolite system

Participant acceptance/satisfaction · Dental patients undergoing direct or indirect restorative treatment (no age or gender restriction)
1 finding from 1 review
  • Rubber dam isolation for restorative treatment in dental patients 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes
    Pit and fissure sealing (permanent molars)
    Rubber dam may be associated with significantly lower satisfaction than the Isolite system but evidence very uncertain, mainly worse comfort (31%, P=0.02) and less preference (26%, P=0.002) (Alhareky 2014).
    1 study · 42 participants
    Very low

Rubber dam isolation and moisture control (alone or with saliva aspiration) vs Cotton rolls (with or without saliva aspiration)

Participant acceptance/satisfaction · Dental patients undergoing direct or indirect restorative treatment (no age or gender restriction)
1 finding from 1 review
  • Rubber dam isolation for restorative treatment in dental patients 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes
    Non-carious cervical lesions (composite restoration)
    Evidence did not support higher acceptance/preference for rubber dam than cotton rolls (P = 0.85 from binomial test on 28 participants; very low-certainty evidence) (Loguercio 2015).
    1 study · 28 participants
    Very low

Fluoride mouthrinse (any fluoride agent, concentration, volume, frequency or technique; swished and expectorated, not swallowed) vs placebo or no treatment

Unacceptability of treatment (drop-outs / leaving study early) · Children and adolescents aged 16 years or less

It is very uncertain whether fluoride mouthrinse (any fluoride agent, concentration, volume,… changes unacceptability of treatment as measured by leaving study early… compared with placebo or no treatment (very low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Fluoride gel (topically applied; operator- or self-applied; any fluoride agent/concentration; frequency at least once a year) vs placebo or no treatment

Unacceptability of treatment (dropouts/exclusions during the trial) · Children and adolescents aged 16 years or less

Fluoride gel (topically applied; operator- or self-applied; any… showed no clear difference in unacceptability of treatment (dropouts/exclusions during the trial) compared with placebo or no treatment; GRADE not reported.

3 findings from 1 review

Micro-invasive treatment (proximal sealing or resin infiltration): resin sealant, glass ionomer sealant, polyurethane/adhesive patch, or resin infiltration vs Non-invasive / control treatment

Material deficiency (retention/adaptation loss; re-treatment) · Dentate children and adults with non-cavitated proximal caries lesions extending into enamel or dentine (not pulp) in primary or permanent…
1 finding from 1 review

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

Postoperative sensitivity, marginal adaptation, anatomic form and other clinical outcomes (USPHS restoration quality; includes tooth vitality and pulpitis) · Adults and adolescents in any age group with restorations in the permanent dentition and children with restorations in the primary dentition

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Fluoride toothpaste vs Fluoride mouthrinse

Unacceptability of treatment (drop-outs / leaving study early) · Children and adolescents aged 16 years or less

Fluoride toothpaste showed no clear difference in unacceptability of treatment (drop-outs) compared with fluoride mouthrinse; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Fluoride mouthrinse (0.05-0.32% sodium fluoride or amine fluoride) added to daily fluoride toothpaste vs Fluoride mouthrinse

Unacceptability of treatment (drop-outs / leaving study early) · Children and adolescents aged 16 years or less

Fluoride mouthrinse combined with fluoride toothpaste showed no clear difference in unacceptability of treatment (drop-outs / leaving study early) compared with fluoride mouthrinse alone; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Fluoride gel combined with fluoride mouthrinse vs Fluoride gel

Unacceptability of treatment (drop-outs / leaving study early) · Children and adolescents aged 16 years or less

Fluoride gel combined with fluoride mouthrinse showed no clear difference in unacceptability of treatment (drop-outs / leaving study early) compared with fluoride gel alone; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Fluoride varnish combined with fluoride toothpaste vs Fluoride varnish

Unacceptability of treatment (drop-outs / leaving study early) · Children and adolescents aged 16 years or less

Fluoride varnish combined with fluoride toothpaste showed no clear difference in unacceptability of treatment (drop-outs / leaving study early) compared with fluoride varnish alone; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Fluoride varnish combined with fluoride toothpaste vs Fluoride toothpaste alone

Unacceptability of treatment (drop-outs / leaving study early) · Children and adolescents aged 16 years or less

Fluoride varnish combined with fluoride toothpaste showed no clear difference in unacceptability of treatment (drop-outs / leaving study early) compared with fluoride toothpaste alone; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Fluoride varnish vs Fluoride toothpaste alone

Unacceptability of treatment (drop-outs / leaving study early) · Children and adolescents aged 16 years or less

Fluoride varnish showed no clear difference in unacceptability of treatment (drop-outs) compared with fluoride toothpaste; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Fluoride mouthrinse, gel or varnish combined with fluoride toothpaste (any combined regimen) vs Fluoride toothpaste alone

Unacceptability of treatment (drop-outs / leaving study early) · Children and adolescents aged 16 years or less

Fluoride mouthrinse, gel or varnish combined with fluoride… showed no clear difference in unacceptability of treatment (drop-outs / leaving study early) compared with fluoride toothpaste alone; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Fluoride toothpaste vs Any other topical fluoride (gel or mouthrinse)

Unacceptability of treatment (drop-outs / leaving study early) · Children and adolescents aged 16 years or less

Fluoride toothpaste showed no clear difference in unacceptability of treatment (drop-outs) compared with any other topical fluoride (gel or mouthrinse); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Fluoride mouthrinse (0.05-0.32% sodium fluoride or amine fluoride) added to daily fluoride toothpaste vs Fluoride toothpaste alone

Unacceptability of treatment (drop-outs / leaving study early) · Children and adolescents aged 16 years or less

Fluoride mouthrinse combined with fluoride toothpaste showed no clear difference in unacceptability of treatment (drop-outs / leaving study early) compared with fluoride toothpaste alone; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Fluoride varnish vs Fluoride mouthrinse

Unacceptability of treatment (drop-outs / leaving study early) · Children and adolescents aged 16 years or less

Fluoride varnish showed no clear difference in unacceptability of treatment (drop-outs) compared with fluoride mouthrinse; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Topical fluoride therapy (toothpaste, mouthrinse, gel or varnish; any fluoride agent/concentration; frequency at least once a year) vs placebo or no treatment

Unacceptability of treatment (dropouts/exclusions during the trial) · Children and adolescents aged 16 years or less

Topical fluoride therapy (toothpaste, mouthrinse, gel or varnish;… showed no clear difference in unacceptability of treatment (dropouts/exclusions during the trial) compared with placebo or no treatment; GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review