Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

7 questions · 7 findings · 6 reviews · Dental caries

Sort:Best matchNewest Highest certainty Download CSV

No studies found 3 · 42.9%GRADE not reported 1 · 14.3%Very low 1 · 14.3%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 2 · 28.6%High 0 · 0%

Single full-coverage metal-ceramic crown over composite core and post vs Direct adhesive composite restoration with post (conventional filling, no crown)

Catastrophic failure of the restored tooth or restoration leading directly to extraction · People with a permanent tooth that has undergone endodontic (root canal) treatment

1 finding from 1 review

Single crowns versus conventional fillings for the restoration of root‐filled teeth 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes
3 years
SoF 'Catastrophic failure of restoration': assumed risk (conventional filling) 0, corresponding risk (single crown) 0; no events in either group so a relative effect was not estimable; 117 participants (1 study); GRADE…
1 study · 117 participants
Very low

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

Caries (lesion) progression (radiographic) · Dentate children and adults with non-cavitated proximal caries lesions extending into enamel or dentine (not pulp) in primary or permanent…

Micro-invasive treatment (proximal sealing or resin infiltration):… probably leads to lower caries (lesion) progression measured by digital subtraction… compared with non-invasive measures (e.g. fluoride varnish, flossing/oral hygiene… (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Micro‐invasive interventions for managing proximal dental decay in primary and permanent teeth 2015 · Cochrane All outcomes
12 to 18 months (radiographic follow-up)
OR 0.18 [0.06, 0.50]
3 studies
Moderate

Repair of a defective amalgam restoration in a permanent molar or premolar tooth (with amalgam) vs Replacement of a defective amalgam restoration in a permanent molar or premolar tooth (with amalgam)

Extraction of tooth (due to decay) · Adults (16 years or over) with one or more defective amalgam restoration(s) in a molar or premolar tooth/teeth

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Replacement versus repair of defective restorations in adults: amalgam 2014 · Cochrane All outcomes
Medium term (less than 5 years) or long term (5 years and above)
No randomised controlled trials were found
0 studies
No studies found

Repair of a defective resin composite restoration in a permanent molar or premolar tooth (with resin composite) vs Replacement of a defective resin composite restoration in a permanent molar or premolar tooth (with resin composite)

Extraction of tooth (due to decay) · Adults (16 years or over) with one or more defective resin composite restoration(s) in a molar or premolar tooth/teeth

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Replacement versus repair of defective restorations in adults: resin composite 2014 · Cochrane All outcomes
Medium term (less than 5 years) or long term (5 years and above)
No randomised controlled trials were found
0 studies
No studies found

Fluoride varnish vs placebo or no treatment

Caries increment in primary/deciduous teeth: decayed, (extraction indicated/missing) and filled teeth d(e/m)ft (prevented fraction) · Children and adolescents aged 16 years or less

1 finding from 1 review

Fluoride varnishes for preventing dental caries in children and adolescents 2013 · Cochrane All outcomes
At least 1 year · Primary/deciduous dentition
PF 0.65 [0.48, 0.82]
2 studies · 322 participants
GRADE not reported

Fluoride varnish vs placebo or no treatment

Caries increment on primary (deciduous) tooth surfaces (d(e/m)fs), prevented fraction · Children and adolescents aged 16 years or less

1 finding from 1 review

Fluoride varnishes for preventing dental caries in children and adolescents 2013 · Cochrane All outcomes
At least 1 year · Primary/deciduous dentition
PF 0.37 [0.24, 0.51]
10 studies · 3804 participants
Moderate

Dental fillings (restorations) vs Dental extractions

Outcome not reported · Children aged 12 years or younger with tooth decay involving at least one tooth in the primary dentition, symptomatic or symptom free

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Dental fillings for the treatment of caries in the primary dentition 2009 · Cochrane All outcomes
Minimum 6 months follow-up
"No studies were found that compared restorations versus extractions or no treatment as an intervention in children with caries in the primary dentition."
Studies not reported
No studies found