What do systematic reviews say?

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

Oral-health promotion programs (OHPPs): community-based oral-health education/training, supervised toothbrushing with fluoride toothpaste and topical fluoride, dental screening, and dietary advice vs No oral-health promotion program, or a differing (usual-care) action under similar conditions

In UK studies, OHPPs were associated with lower DMFT/S (OR 0.04, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.58; ungraded).

• Clinical Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Oral-Health Promotion in Dental Caries Prevention among Children:… 2019 All outcomes

  Community settings: home visits, telephone contacts, healthcare centers, and primary schools · Country: United Kingdom
  OR 0.04 [0.00, 0.58]
  5 studies
  GRADE not reported

Oral-health promotion programs (OHPPs): community-based oral-health education/training, supervised toothbrushing with fluoride toothpaste and topical fluoride, dental screening, and dietary advice vs No oral-health promotion program, or a differing (usual-care) action under similar conditions

The single Irish study showed lower DMFT/S with OHPP (OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.45 to 0.61; ungraded, single study).

• Clinical Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Oral-Health Promotion in Dental Caries Prevention among Children:… 2019 All outcomes

  Community settings: home visits, telephone contacts, healthcare centers, and primary schools · Country: Ireland
  OR 0.52 [0.45, 0.61]
  1 study
  GRADE not reported

Oral-health promotion programs (OHPPs): community-based oral-health education/training, supervised toothbrushing with fluoride toothpaste and topical fluoride, dental screening, and dietary advice vs No oral-health promotion program, or a differing (usual-care) action under similar conditions

The single Japanese study yielded a degenerate estimate of OR 0.00 (95% CI 0.00 to 0.00; ungraded, single study).

• Clinical Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Oral-Health Promotion in Dental Caries Prevention among Children:… 2019 All outcomes

  Community settings: home visits, telephone contacts, healthcare centers, and primary schools · Country: Japan
  OR 0.00 [0.00, 0.00]
  1 study
  GRADE not reported

Oral-health promotion programs (OHPPs): community-based oral-health education/training, supervised toothbrushing with fluoride toothpaste and topical fluoride, dental screening, and dietary advice vs No oral-health promotion program, or a differing (usual-care) action under similar conditions

In children younger than 6 years, OHPPs were associated with lower cost per DMFT/S (OR 0.07, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.32; ungraded).

• Clinical Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Oral-Health Promotion in Dental Caries Prevention among Children:… 2019 All outcomes

  Community settings: home visits, telephone contacts, healthcare centers, and primary schools · Age < 6 years
  OR 0.07 [0.02, 0.32]
  6 studies
  GRADE not reported

Oral-health promotion programs (OHPPs): community-based oral-health education/training, supervised toothbrushing with fluoride toothpaste and topical fluoride, dental screening, and dietary advice vs No oral-health promotion program, or a differing (usual-care) action under similar conditions

In studies published from 2015 onward, OHPPs were associated with lower DMFT (OR 0.08, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.53; ungraded).

• Clinical Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Oral-Health Promotion in Dental Caries Prevention among Children:… 2019 All outcomes

  Community settings: home visits, telephone contacts, healthcare centers, and primary schools · Published 2015 or later
  OR 0.08 [0.01, 0.53]
  4 studies
  GRADE not reported

Oral-health promotion programs (OHPPs): community-based oral-health education/training, supervised toothbrushing with fluoride toothpaste and topical fluoride, dental screening, and dietary advice vs No oral-health promotion program, or a differing (usual-care) action under similar conditions

Oral-health promotion programs were associated with markedly lower odds of DMFT/S in children (OR 0.19, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.39; ungraded, very high heterogeneity I2=98.5%).

• Clinical Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Oral-Health Promotion in Dental Caries Prevention among Children:… 2019 All outcomes

  Community settings: home visits, telephone contacts, healthcare centers, and primary schools
  OR 0.19 [0.10, 0.39]
  8 studies
  GRADE not reported

Oral-health promotion programs (OHPPs): community-based oral-health education/training, supervised toothbrushing with fluoride toothpaste and topical fluoride, dental screening, and dietary advice vs No oral-health promotion program, or a differing (usual-care) action under similar conditions

The single Finnish study showed lower DMFT/S with OHPP (OR 0.48, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.56; ungraded, single study).

• Clinical Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Oral-Health Promotion in Dental Caries Prevention among Children:… 2019 All outcomes

  Community settings: home visits, telephone contacts, healthcare centers, and primary schools · Country: Finland
  OR 0.48 [0.41, 0.56]
  1 study
  GRADE not reported

Oral-health promotion programs (OHPPs): community-based oral-health education/training, supervised toothbrushing with fluoride toothpaste and topical fluoride, dental screening, and dietary advice vs No oral-health promotion program, or a differing (usual-care) action under similar conditions

In studies published before 2015, OHPPs were associated with lower DMFT (OR 0.01, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.13; ungraded).

• Clinical Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Oral-Health Promotion in Dental Caries Prevention among Children:… 2019 All outcomes

  Community settings: home visits, telephone contacts, healthcare centers, and primary schools · Published before 2015
  OR 0.01 [0.00, 0.13]
  4 studies
  GRADE not reported

Oral-health promotion programs (OHPPs): community-based oral-health education/training, supervised toothbrushing with fluoride toothpaste and topical fluoride, dental screening, and dietary advice vs No oral-health promotion program, or a differing (usual-care) action under similar conditions

In children aged 6 years and older, the cost-effectiveness estimate was extremely imprecise and not significant (OR 0.00, 95% CI 0.00 to 48704.6; ungraded).

• Clinical Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Oral-Health Promotion in Dental Caries Prevention among Children:… 2019 All outcomes

  Community settings: home visits, telephone contacts, healthcare centers, and primary schools · Age >= 6 years
  OR 0.00 [0.00, 48704.6]
  2 studies
  GRADE not reported

Oral-health promotion programs (OHPPs): community-based oral-health education/training, supervised toothbrushing with fluoride toothpaste and topical fluoride, dental screening, and dietary advice vs No oral-health promotion program, or a differing (usual-care) action under similar conditions

In children aged 6 years and older, OHPPs showed no significant effect on DMFT/S (OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.08 to 1.01; ungraded).

• Clinical Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Oral-Health Promotion in Dental Caries Prevention among Children:… 2019 All outcomes

  Community settings: home visits, telephone contacts, healthcare centers, and primary schools · Age >= 6 years
  OR 0.29 [0.08, 1.01]
  2 studies
  GRADE not reported

Oral-health promotion programs (OHPPs): community-based oral-health education/training, supervised toothbrushing with fluoride toothpaste and topical fluoride, dental screening, and dietary advice vs No oral-health promotion program, or a differing (usual-care) action under similar conditions

OHPPs were associated with a lower program cost per DMFT/S in about 97 of 100 programs (OR 0.03, 95% CI 0.01 to 0.11; ungraded, very high heterogeneity I2=99%).

• Clinical Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Oral-Health Promotion in Dental Caries Prevention among Children:… 2019 All outcomes

  Community settings: home visits, telephone contacts, healthcare centers, and primary schools
  OR 0.03 [0.01, 0.11]
  8 studies
  GRADE not reported

Oral-health promotion programs (OHPPs): community-based oral-health education/training, supervised toothbrushing with fluoride toothpaste and topical fluoride, dental screening, and dietary advice vs No oral-health promotion program, or a differing (usual-care) action under similar conditions

In children younger than 6 years, OHPPs were associated with lower odds of DMFT/S (OR 0.14, 95% CI 0.05 to 0.39; ungraded).

• Clinical Effectiveness and Cost-Effectiveness of Oral-Health Promotion in Dental Caries Prevention among Children:… 2019 All outcomes

  Community settings: home visits, telephone contacts, healthcare centers, and primary schools · Age < 6 years
  OR 0.14 [0.05, 0.39]
  6 studies
  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

COE with light-based detection (e.g. ViziLite Plus, Microlux/DL, VELscope, Identafi 3000) vs COE with vital rinsing (toluidine blue/tolonium chloride)

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 studies; planned comparative analysis (COE with vital rinse vs COE with light-based detection) not populated in this version.
  0 studies
  No studies found

COE with blood/salivary (biomarker) analysis vs COE with vital rinsing (toluidine blue/tolonium chloride)

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 studies; planned comparative analysis (COE with vital rinse vs COE with blood/salivary analysis) not populated in this version.
  0 studies
  No studies found

COE with blood/salivary (biomarker) analysis vs Conventional oral examination (COE) alone

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 studies; planned comparative analysis (COE vs COE with blood/salivary analysis) not populated in this version.
  0 studies
  No studies found

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