Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

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

398 questions · 757 findings · 66 reviews · Oral Health

No studies found 20 · 2.6%GRADE not reported 574 · 75.8%Very low 39 · 5.2%Low 49 · 6.5%Moderate 53 · 7%High 22 · 2.9%

Caries distribution assessment (individual, tooth and surface levels) vs None (descriptive prevalence review; subgroup analyses by urban/rural status, country and year)

Caries distribution (individual/tooth/surface level) · European adolescents aged 12–19 years

Caries distribution was skewed at individual, tooth and surface levels and too heterogeneous to meta-analyze (narrative synthesis of 11 studies; not GRADE-rated).

1 finding from 1 review

Turned (smoother) implant surfaces vs Roughened implant surfaces

Early implant failure · Adults with missing teeth who received osseointegrated root-formed oral implants, functionally loaded and followed for at least 1 year

Turned (smoother) implant surfaces showed no clear difference in early implant failure compared with roughened implant surfaces (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Turned (smoother) implant surfaces vs Roughened implant surfaces

Peri-implantitis · Adults with missing teeth who received osseointegrated root-formed oral implants, functionally loaded and followed for at least 1 year

Turned (smoother) implant surfaces may leads to lower peri-implantitis compared with roughened implant surfaces (low certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Multiple-surface ART restoration using high-viscosity glass ionomer vs Single-surface ART with high-viscosity GIC

Restoration survival · Children with decayed primary molar teeth

Multi-surface ART/HVGIC restorations had lower reported survival (49% at 3 years) than single-surface restorations (ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Multiple-surface ART restoration using high-viscosity glass ionomer vs Single-surface ART with high-viscosity GIC

Restoration failure · Children (2-9 years) with caries in posterior primary teeth

Multi-surface ART restorations had a high reported mean annual failure rate (17%; ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Astra cylindrical turned surface implants vs Astra cylindrical TiO2-blasted surface implants

Implant failure · Adults with missing teeth who received osseointegrated root-formed oral implants, functionally loaded and followed for at least 1 year
1 finding from 1 review

Single-surface ART restoration using high-viscosity glass ionomer vs Multi-surface ART with high-viscosity GIC

Restoration failure · Children (2-9 years) with caries in posterior primary teeth

Single-surface ART restorations had a low reported mean annual failure rate (about 5%; ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Single-surface ART restoration using high-viscosity glass ionomer vs Multi-surface ART with high-viscosity GIC

Restoration survival · Children with decayed primary molar teeth

Single-surface ART/HVGIC restorations had high reported survival (86% at 3 years), significantly higher than multi-surface restorations (ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Class-I (single-surface) cavity restoration vs Class-II (proximal/multi-surface) cavity restoration

Treatment failure (annual failure rate) by cavity class · Children with carious primary teeth restored in Class-I versus Class-II cavities, no pulp therapy

Class-II restorations failed more than Class-I (annual failure 5-28.9% vs 1.2-14.7% in ART studies); low quality of evidence (ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

HVGIC bilayer insertion and surface coating protocols vs Alternative HVGIC insertion and surface coating protocols

Restoration failure · Children with carious primary teeth

No comparative effect estimate was reported; bilayer placement and nanofilled coating were described as improving survival.

1 finding from 1 review

Single-surface ART restoration using high-viscosity glass ionomer vs No comparator

Restoration survival · Permanent posterior teeth with single-surface cavities

Single-surface high-viscosity glass-ionomer ART restorations in permanent teeth had high 2-year survival (93%, 95% CI 89-95%); evidence ungraded.

6 findings from 1 review
Show 3 more findings

Single-surface ART restoration using high-viscosity glass ionomer vs No comparator

Restoration survival · Primary posterior teeth with single-surface cavities

Single-surface high-viscosity glass-ionomer ART restorations in primary teeth had high 2-year survival (93%, 95% CI 91-94%); evidence ungraded.

3 findings from 1 review

Multiple-surface ART restoration using high-viscosity glass ionomer vs No comparator

Restoration survival · Primary posterior teeth with multiple-surface cavities

Multiple-surface high-viscosity glass-ionomer ART restorations in primary teeth had moderate 2-year survival (62%, 95% CI 51-73%); evidence ungraded.

3 findings from 1 review

Multiple-surface ART restoration using high-viscosity glass ionomer vs No comparator

Restoration survival · Permanent posterior teeth with multiple-surface cavities

Multiple-surface high-viscosity glass-ionomer ART restorations in permanent teeth had high 1-year survival (86%, 95% CI 59-98%); evidence ungraded.

3 findings from 1 review

Implant surface smoothening added to systemic antibiotics + resective surgery + local antibiotics vs No implant surface smoothening (same surgical protocol)

Implant failure · People with at least one dental implant affected by perimplantitis

Implant surface smoothening added to systemic antibiotics +… showed no clear difference in implant failure compared with no implant surface smoothening (same surgical protocol); GRADE not reported.

1 finding from 1 review

Resin-based fissure sealant vs Fluoride varnish

DMFS (decayed, missing, filled surfaces) increment, occlusal surfaces · Schoolchildren aged 6-12 years with sound occlusal surfaces of the first permanent molars

Pit and fissure sealant and fluoride varnish showed no statistically significant difference in DMFS increment at 24 months (SMD -0.13, 95% CI -0.67 to 0.40; I2=92%; not GRADE-rated).

1 finding from 1 review

Radiographic imaging methods (any: analogue radiographs, digital radiographs, or CBCT) vs Reference standard (histology, excavation, or enhanced visual examination)

Diagnostic accuracy on surfaces with pit and fissure sealants · Asymptomatic children, adolescents, or adults presenting for clinical examination (in vivo studies), or extracted teeth of children or…

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review
  • Imaging modalities to inform the detection and diagnosis of early caries 2021 · Cochrane All outcomes
    Up to 3 months between index test and reference standard (in vivo studies) · Pit and fissure sealants
    Pre-specified heterogeneity investigation of surfaces with pit and fissure sealants: no study reported the inclusion of sealants that would allow evaluation of early caries lesions.
    0 studies
    No studies found

38% SDF solution (applied biannually) vs 12% SDF solution (applied biannually)

Arrest of advanced cavitated carious lesions on any coronal surface · Preschool children with advanced cavitated carious lesions on any coronal surface (primary teeth)

38% SDF solution (applied biannually) was more effective than 12% SDF solution (applied biannually) for arrest or reversal of cavitated coronal carious lesions (RR 1.3, 95% CI 1.21 to 1.41; high certainty).

4 findings from 1 review
Show 1 more finding

1.23% APF gel vs CPP-ACP

Arrest or reversal of noncavitated carious lesions on any coronal surface · Children and adults with noncavitated carious lesions on any coronal surface (primary and permanent teeth)

1.23% APF gel was probably more effective than 10% CPP-ACP paste for arrest or reversal of any-coronal carious lesions (RR 2.19, 95% CI 1.83 to 2.61; moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review