Evidence Gaps Analysis

3688 outcomes from 214 review series
Clear
#VALUE!
Current Version: CD014546
Current Evidence Gaps 4 gaps
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Downgrade Reason
Asymptomatic children or adults presenting for clinical examination (clinical studies); extracted teeth of children or adults (in vitro studies). Clinical or in vitro studies which intentionally included dentine and frank cavitations for assessment were excluded Visual classification. Results of the index tests were usually recorded on an ordinal scale to indicate severity of disease. For the purposes of this review the positivity threshold was caries in enamel Estimates were compared across different classification systems. A separate review in this series explores the comparative accuracy of visual classification, fluorescence‐based, radiograph, and transillumination methods of detection and diagnosis False negatives (tooth sites or surfaces incorrectly classified as not having early enamel caries) Low Not specified
Asymptomatic children or adults presenting for clinical examination (clinical studies); extracted teeth of children or adults (in vitro studies). Clinical or in vitro studies which intentionally included dentine and frank cavitations for assessment were excluded Visual classification. Results of the index tests were usually recorded on an ordinal scale to indicate severity of disease. For the purposes of this review the positivity threshold was caries in enamel Estimates were compared across different classification systems. A separate review in this series explores the comparative accuracy of visual classification, fluorescence‐based, radiograph, and transillumination methods of detection and diagnosis False positives (tooth sites or surfaces incorrectly classified as having early enamel caries) Low Not specified
Asymptomatic children or adults presenting for clinical examination (clinical studies); extracted teeth of children or adults (in vitro studies). Clinical or in vitro studies which intentionally included dentine and frank cavitations for assessment were excluded Visual classification. Results of the index tests were usually recorded on an ordinal scale to indicate severity of disease. For the purposes of this review the positivity threshold was caries in enamel Estimates were compared across different classification systems. A separate review in this series explores the comparative accuracy of visual classification, fluorescence‐based, radiograph, and transillumination methods of detection and diagnosis True negatives (tooth sites or surfaces without early enamel caries) Low Not specified
Asymptomatic children or adults presenting for clinical examination (clinical studies); extracted teeth of children or adults (in vitro studies). Clinical or in vitro studies which intentionally included dentine and frank cavitations for assessment were excluded Visual classification. Results of the index tests were usually recorded on an ordinal scale to indicate severity of disease. For the purposes of this review the positivity threshold was caries in enamel Estimates were compared across different classification systems. A separate review in this series explores the comparative accuracy of visual classification, fluorescence‐based, radiograph, and transillumination methods of detection and diagnosis True positives (tooth sites or surfaces with early enamel caries) Low Not specified
#VALUE!
Current Version: CD013855
Current Evidence Gaps 4 gaps
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Downgrade Reason
Children or adults who are presenting asymptomatically or are suspected of having enamel caries (clinical studies); extracted teeth of children or adults (in vitro studies). Studies which intentionally included dentine and frank cavitations were excluded Transillumination?based devices ? including near?infrared (NIR), optical coherence tomography (OCT), and fibre?optic transillumination (FOTI)/digital fibre?optic transillumination (DIFOTI), suitable for use as an adjunct to a conventional clinical oral examination. The index tests produced an enhanced view of the tooth and were interpreted by a trained examiner Comparisons were made between transillumination devices. A separate review in this series investigates comparisons between transillumination?based tests and enhanced visual, radiograph, and fluorescence tests True positives (patients with early enamel caries) Low Not specified
Children or adults who are presenting asymptomatically or are suspected of having enamel caries (clinical studies); extracted teeth of children or adults (in vitro studies). Studies which intentionally included dentine and frank cavitations were excluded Transillumination?based devices ? including near?infrared (NIR), optical coherence tomography (OCT), and fibre?optic transillumination (FOTI)/digital fibre?optic transillumination (DIFOTI), suitable for use as an adjunct to a conventional clinical oral examination. The index tests produced an enhanced view of the tooth and were interpreted by a trained examiner Comparisons were made between transillumination devices. A separate review in this series investigates comparisons between transillumination?based tests and enhanced visual, radiograph, and fluorescence tests False positives (patients incorrectly classified as having early enamel caries) Low Not specified
Children or adults who are presenting asymptomatically or are suspected of having enamel caries (clinical studies); extracted teeth of children or adults (in vitro studies). Studies which intentionally included dentine and frank cavitations were excluded Transillumination?based devices ? including near?infrared (NIR), optical coherence tomography (OCT), and fibre?optic transillumination (FOTI)/digital fibre?optic transillumination (DIFOTI), suitable for use as an adjunct to a conventional clinical oral examination. The index tests produced an enhanced view of the tooth and were interpreted by a trained examiner Comparisons were made between transillumination devices. A separate review in this series investigates comparisons between transillumination?based tests and enhanced visual, radiograph, and fluorescence tests True negatives (patients without early enamel caries) Low Not specified
Children or adults who are presenting asymptomatically or are suspected of having enamel caries (clinical studies); extracted teeth of children or adults (in vitro studies). Studies which intentionally included dentine and frank cavitations were excluded Transillumination?based devices ? including near?infrared (NIR), optical coherence tomography (OCT), and fibre?optic transillumination (FOTI)/digital fibre?optic transillumination (DIFOTI), suitable for use as an adjunct to a conventional clinical oral examination. The index tests produced an enhanced view of the tooth and were interpreted by a trained examiner Comparisons were made between transillumination devices. A separate review in this series investigates comparisons between transillumination?based tests and enhanced visual, radiograph, and fluorescence tests False negatives (patients incorrectly classified as not having early enamel caries) Low Not specified
#VALUE!
Current Version: CD013811
Current Evidence Gaps 1 gap
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Downgrade Reason
Children or adults who are presenting asymptomatically or who are suspected of having enamel caries (clinical studies); extracted teeth of children or adults (in vitro studies) Fluorescence-based devices Comparisons were made between fluorescence devices Detection of dental caries at the threshold of caries in enamel Low Not specified
#VALUE!
Current Version: CD013806
Current Evidence Gaps 4 gaps
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Downgrade Reason
Adults who present asymptomatically or are suspected of having root caries (in vivo studies); extracted teeth of adults (in vitro studies) Laser fluorescence nan Root caries detection Very Low Not specified
Adults who present asymptomatically or are suspected of having root caries (in vivo studies); extracted teeth of adults (in vitro studies) Radiograph and visual examination combined nan Root caries detection Very Low Not specified
Adults who present asymptomatically or are suspected of having root caries (in vivo studies); extracted teeth of adults (in vitro studies) Radiographs nan Root caries detection Very Low Not specified
Adults who present asymptomatically or are suspected of having root caries (in vivo studies); extracted teeth of adults (in vitro studies) Visual examination nan Root caries detection Very Low Not specified
#VALUE!
Current Version: CD012744
Current Evidence Gaps 16 gaps
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Downgrade Reason
patients receiving radiotherapy on its own or in addition to chemotherapy to the head and neck region amifostine no treatment/placebo Xerostomia (0-4 scale - grade 2 or above) - 12 months postRT Low Not specified
patients receiving radiotherapy on its own or in addition to chemotherapy to the head and neck region amifostine no treatment/placebo vomiting associated with amifostine (Adverse effects) Low Not specified
patients receiving radiotherapy on its own or in addition to chemotherapy to the head and neck region amifostine no treatment/placebo allergic response associated with amifostine(Adverse effects) Low Not specified
patients receiving radiotherapy on its own or in addition to chemotherapy to the head and neck region amifostine no treatment/placebo nausea associated with amifostine(Adverse effects) Low Not specified
patients receiving radiotherapy on its own or in addition to chemotherapy to the head and neck region amifostine no treatment/placebo hypotension associated with amifostine(Adverse effects) Low Not specified
patients receiving radiotherapy on its own or in addition to chemotherapy to the head and neck region palifermin placebo Xerostomia (0-4 scale - grade 2 or above) - Up to and including 3 months postRT Low Not specified
patients receiving radiotherapy on its own or in addition to chemotherapy to the head and neck region pilocarpine no treatment/placebo sweating Low Not specified
patients receiving radiotherapy on its own or in addition to chemotherapy to the head and neck region palifermin placebo Overall survival at 42 to 72 months from baseline Moderate Not specified
patients receiving radiotherapy on its own or in addition to chemotherapy to the head and neck region palifermin placebo Adverse effects No Evidence Yet N/A
patients receiving radiotherapy on its own or in addition to chemotherapy to the head and neck region pilocarpine no treatment/placebo adverse events, apart from for sweating No Evidence Yet N/A
patients receiving radiotherapy on its own or in addition to chemotherapy to the head and neck region amifostine no treatment/placebo Overall survival at 12 to 24 months postRT Very Low Not specified
patients receiving radiotherapy on its own or in addition to chemotherapy to the head and neck region amifostine no treatment/placebo Salivary flow rate (mg/5 min) (unstimulated) - 12 months postRT Very Low Not specified
patients receiving radiotherapy on its own or in addition to chemotherapy to the head and neck region amifostine no treatment/placebo Quality of life (Patient Benefit Questionnaire) - 12 months postRT Very Low Not specified
patients receiving radiotherapy on its own or in addition to chemotherapy to the head and neck region pilocarpine no treatment/placebo Xerostomia - Up to and including 6 months postRT Very Low Not specified
patients receiving radiotherapy on its own or in addition to chemotherapy to the head and neck region pilocarpine no treatment/placebo Salivary flow rate (unstimulated) - Up to and including 3 months postRT Very Low Not specified
patients receiving radiotherapy on its own or in addition to chemotherapy to the head and neck region pilocarpine no treatment/placebo Quality of life - Up to and including 6 months postRT Very Low Not specified
patients receiving radiotherapy on its own or in addition to chemotherapy to the head and neck region pilocarpine no treatment/placebo Overall survival - Up to and including 6 months postRT Very Low Not specified
CD000978
Current Version: CD000978.PUB5 | 4 older versions
Current Evidence Gaps 7 gaps
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Downgrade Reason
Patients with cancer receiving treatment Chlorhexidine Placebo/no treatment Mucositis (any) Low Not specified
Patients with cancer receiving treatment Chlorhexidine Placebo/no treatment Mucositis (severe) Low Not specified
Patients with cancer receiving treatment Cryotherapy No treatment Mucositis (any) Low Not specified
Patients with cancer receiving treatment Cryotherapy No treatment Mucositis (severe) Low Not specified
Patients with cancer receiving treatment Keratinocyte GF Placebo Mucositis (any) Low Not specified
Patients with cancer receiving treatment Keratinocyte GF Placebo Mucositis (severe) Low Not specified
Patients with cancer receiving treatment Amifostine Placebo/no treatment Mucositis (any) Moderate Not specified
Patients with cancer receiving treatment Sucralfate Placebo/usual care Mucositis (any) Moderate Not specified
Patients with cancer receiving treatment Sucralfate Placebo/usual care Mucositis (severe) Moderate Not specified
Patients with cancer receiving treatment Amifostine Placebo/no treatment Mucositis (severe) Very Low Not specified
Previous Versions
CD000978.PUB4
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Studies
Cancer patients Allopurinol Placebo/no treatment Any mucositis No Evidence Yet -
Cancer patients Allopurinol Placebo/no treatment Moderate plus severe mucositis No Evidence Yet -
Cancer patients Aloe vera Placebo Moderate plus severe mucositis No Evidence Yet -
Cancer patients Amifostine Placebo/no treatment Moderate plus severe mucositis No Evidence Yet -
Cancer patients Amifostine Placebo/no treatment Severe mucositis No Evidence Yet -
Cancer patients Amifostine Placebo/no treatment Any mucositis No Evidence Yet -
Cancer patients Chlorhexidine Placebo/no treatment Any mucositis No Evidence Yet -
Cancer patients Cryotherapy Placebo/no treatment Any mucositis No Evidence Yet -
Cancer patients Cryotherapy Placebo/no treatment Moderate plus severe mucositis No Evidence Yet -
Cancer patients Cryotherapy Placebo/no treatment Severe mucositis No Evidence Yet -
Cancer patients G-CSF Placebo/no treatment Severe mucositis No Evidence Yet -
Cancer patients Glutamine Placebo/no treatment Any mucositis No Evidence Yet -
Cancer patients Glutamine Placebo/no treatment Moderate plus severe mucositis No Evidence Yet -
Cancer patients Glutamine Placebo/no treatment Severe mucositis No Evidence Yet -
Cancer patients GM-CSF Placebo/no treatment Any mucositis No Evidence Yet -
Cancer patients Honey No treatment Any mucositis No Evidence Yet -
Cancer patients Keratinocyte GF Placebo Moderate plus severe mucositis No Evidence Yet -
Cancer patients Keratinocyte GF Placebo Any mucositis No Evidence Yet -
Cancer patients Keratinocyte GF Placebo Severe mucositis No Evidence Yet -
Cancer patients Laser Placebo/no treatment Severe mucositis No Evidence Yet -
Cancer patients Sucralfate Placebo/usual care Severe mucositis No Evidence Yet -
Cancer patients Sucralfate Placebo/usual care Any mucositis No Evidence Yet -
Cancer patients Sucralfate Placebo/usual care Moderate plus severe mucositis No Evidence Yet -
CD000978.PUB3
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Studies
Adults with head and neck cancer Hydrolytic enzymes No treatment Prevention of moderate/severe mucositis No Evidence Yet -
Adults with head and neck cancer Hydrolytic enzymes No treatment Prevention of severe mucositis No Evidence Yet -
Adults with head and neck cancer receiving radiotherapy Amifostine Placebo/no treatment Prevention of any mucositis No Evidence Yet -
Adults with head and neck cancer receiving radiotherapy Amifostine Placebo/no treatment Prevention of moderate/severe mucositis No Evidence Yet -
Adults with head and neck cancer receiving radiotherapy Amifostine Placebo/no treatment Prevention of severe mucositis No Evidence Yet -
Cancer patients Benzydamine Placebo Prevention of any mucositis No Evidence Yet -
Cancer patients Calcium phosphate Placebo Prevention of any mucositis No Evidence Yet -
Cancer patients Calcium phosphate Placebo Prevention of moderate/severe mucositis No Evidence Yet -
Cancer patients Calcium phosphate Placebo Prevention of severe mucositis No Evidence Yet -
Cancer patients Chinese medicine Control Prevention of any mucositis No Evidence Yet -
Cancer patients Chinese medicine Control Prevention of moderate/severe mucositis No Evidence Yet -
Cancer patients Chinese medicine Control Prevention of severe mucositis No Evidence Yet -
Cancer patients Etoposide bolus Etoposide continuous infusion Prevention of any mucositis No Evidence Yet -
Cancer patients Etoposide bolus Etoposide continuous infusion Prevention of moderate/severe mucositis No Evidence Yet -
Cancer patients Etoposide bolus Etoposide continuous infusion Prevention of severe mucositis No Evidence Yet -
Cancer patients Iseganan Placebo Prevention of any mucositis No Evidence Yet -
Cancer patients Oral care No treatment Prevention of any mucositis No Evidence Yet -
Cancer patients Zinc sulphate Placebo Prevention of severe mucositis No Evidence Yet -
Cancer patients Zinc sulphate Placebo Prevention of moderate/severe mucositis No Evidence Yet -
Cancer patients receiving 5-FU Folinic acid No treatment Mucositis incidence No Evidence Yet -
Cancer patients receiving 5-FU Folinic acid No treatment Moderate/severe mucositis No Evidence Yet -
Patients receiving 5-FU chemotherapy Ice chips No treatment Prevention of severe mucositis No Evidence Yet -
Patients receiving 5-FU chemotherapy Ice chips No treatment Prevention of moderate/severe mucositis No Evidence Yet -
Patients receiving 5-FU chemotherapy Ice chips No treatment Prevention of any mucositis No Evidence Yet -
CD000978.PUB2
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Studies
Adults with head and neck cancer Antibiotic pastille/paste Placebo Mucositis (any) No Evidence Yet -
Cancer patients Acyclovir Placebo Mucositis (any) No Evidence Yet -
Cancer patients Allopurinol mouthrinse Placebo/no treatment Mucositis (any) No Evidence Yet -
Cancer patients Aloe vera Placebo Moderate/severe mucositis No Evidence Yet -
Cancer patients Benzydamine Placebo Mucositis (any) No Evidence Yet -
Cancer patients Beta carotene No treatment Severe mucositis No Evidence Yet -
Cancer patients Calcium phosphate Placebo Mucositis (all levels) No Evidence Yet -
Cancer patients Camomile Placebo Mucositis (all levels) No Evidence Yet -
Cancer patients Chlorhexidine Placebo/no treatment Mucositis (any) No Evidence Yet -
Cancer patients Glutamine Placebo Mucositis (all levels) No Evidence Yet -
Cancer patients GM-CSF Placebo/no treatment Mucositis (all levels) No Evidence Yet -
Cancer patients Iseganan Placebo Mucositis (moderate/severe) No Evidence Yet -
Cancer patients Keratinocyte GF Placebo Moderate/severe mucositis No Evidence Yet -
Cancer patients Povidone Water Mucositis (any) No Evidence Yet -
Cancer patients Sucralfate Placebo Mucositis (all levels) No Evidence Yet -
Cancer patients Systemic antibiotic (clarithromycin) No treatment Moderate/severe mucositis No Evidence Yet -
Cancer patients Traumeel Placebo Mucositis (any) No Evidence Yet -
Cancer patients Zinc sulphate Placebo Moderate/severe mucositis No Evidence Yet -
Cancer patients Zinc sulphate Placebo Severe mucositis No Evidence Yet -
Cancer patients receiving 5-FU Folinic acid No treatment Mucositis (any) No Evidence Yet -
Head and neck cancer patients Honey No treatment Severe mucositis No Evidence Yet -
Head and neck cancer patients Hydrolytic enzymes No treatment Moderate/severe mucositis No Evidence Yet -
Head and neck cancer patients receiving radiotherapy Amifostine Placebo/no treatment Mucositis (any) No Evidence Yet -
Head and neck cancer patients receiving radiotherapy Amifostine Placebo/no treatment Moderate/severe mucositis No Evidence Yet -
Head and neck cancer patients receiving radiotherapy Amifostine Placebo/no treatment Severe mucositis No Evidence Yet -
Head and neck cancer patients receiving radiotherapy Oral care No treatment Mucositis (any) No Evidence Yet -
Patients receiving 5-FU Ice chips No treatment Mucositis (any) No Evidence Yet -
CD000978
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Studies
Adults receiving 5-FU chemotherapy Ice chips No treatment Prevention of mucositis (0 vs 1+) No Evidence Yet -
Adults receiving 5-FU chemotherapy Ice chips No treatment Reduction in mucositis severity (0-1 vs 2+) No Evidence Yet -
Adults receiving chemotherapy Allopurinol mouthrinse Placebo/no treatment Severe mucositis (0-2 vs 3+) No Evidence Yet -
Adults with cancer Clarithromycin No treatment Reduction in mucositis severity (0-1 vs 2+) No Evidence Yet -
Adults with cancer GM-CSF Placebo/no treatment Prevention of mucositis (0 vs 1+) No Evidence Yet -
Adults with head and neck cancer Antibiotic pastille/paste Placebo Prevention of mucositis (0 vs 1+) No Evidence Yet -
Adults with head and neck cancer Hydrolytic enzymes No treatment Severe mucositis (0-2 vs 3+) No Evidence Yet -
Adults with head and neck cancer Hydrolytic enzymes No treatment Reduction in mucositis severity (0-1 vs 2+) No Evidence Yet -
Adults with head and neck cancer Oral care No treatment Prevention of mucositis (0 vs 1+) No Evidence Yet -
Adults with head and neck cancer Povidone Water Prevention of mucositis (0 vs 1+) No Evidence Yet -
Adults with head and neck cancer Povidone Water Severe mucositis (0-2 vs 3+) No Evidence Yet -
Adults with head and neck cancer Povidone Water Reduction in mucositis severity (0-1 vs 2+) No Evidence Yet -
Adults with head and neck cancer receiving radiotherapy Amifostine Placebo/no treatment Severe mucositis (0-2 vs 3+) No Evidence Yet -
Adults with head and neck cancer receiving radiotherapy Amifostine Placebo/no treatment Reduction in mucositis severity (0-1 vs 2+) No Evidence Yet -
Adults with head and neck cancer receiving radiotherapy Amifostine Placebo/no treatment Prevention of mucositis (0 vs 1+) No Evidence Yet -
CD000979
Current Version: CD000979.PUB3 | 2 older versions
Current Evidence Gaps 10 gaps
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Downgrade Reason
children (7 to 11 years old) with posterior crossbite expansion plate observation Crossbite correction High None
children (7 to 11 years old) with posterior crossbite quad-helix observation Crossbite correction High None
children (7 to 11 years old) with posterior crossbite quad-helix expansion plate Molar expansion measured by intermolar distance High None
children (7 to 11 years old) with posterior crossbite quad-helix expansion plate Canine expansion measured by intercanine distance Low Not specified
children (7 to 11 years old) with posterior crossbite quad-helix observation Canine expansion measured by intercanine distance Low Not specified
children with posterior crossbite bone-borne expansion tooth?borne expansion Molar expansion measured by inter?molar distance Low Not specified
children with posterior crossbite bone-borne expansion tooth?borne expansion Crossbite correction Low Not specified
children with posterior crossbite tooth-bone-borne expansion Hyrax Crossbite correction Low Not specified
children with posterior crossbite tooth-bone-borne expansion Hyrax Molar expansion measured by intermolar distance Low Not specified
children (7 to 11 years old) with posterior crossbite expansion plate observation Molar expansion measured by intermolar distance Moderate Not specified
children (7 to 11 years old) with posterior crossbite expansion plate observation Canine expansion measured by intercanine distance Moderate Not specified
children (7 to 11 years old) with posterior crossbite quad-helix expansion plate Crossbite correction Moderate Not specified
children (7 to 11 years old) with posterior crossbite quad-helix observation Molar expansion measured by intermolar distance Moderate Not specified
children (7 to 11 years old) with posterior crossbite quad-helix expansion plate Length of treatment measured in months Moderate Not specified
children and adolescents with posterior crossbite Hyrax observation Crossbite correction Moderate Not specified
children and adolescents with posterior crossbite Hyrax observation Molar expansion measured by intermolar distance Moderate Not specified
children with posterior crossbite Hyrax Haas Crossbite correction Moderate Not specified
children with posterior crossbite Hyrax Haas Molar expansion measured by intermolar distance Moderate Not specified
children and adolescents with posterior crossbite Hyrax observation Canine expansion measured by intercanine distance No Evidence Yet N/A
children with posterior crossbite bone-borne expansion tooth?borne expansion Canine expansion measured by inter?canine distance No Evidence Yet N/A
children with posterior crossbite Hyrax Haas Canine expansion measured by intercanine distance No Evidence Yet N/A
children with posterior crossbite tooth-bone-borne expansion Hyrax Canine expansion measured by intercanine distance No Evidence Yet N/A
Previous Versions
CD000979.PUB2
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Studies
Children with posterior crossbites Fixed appliance Removable appliance Canine expansion (mm) (Follow up after retention period, therefore, it was variable) Low -
Children with posterior crossbites Fixed appliance Removable appliance Crossbite correction (Follow up after retention period, therefore, it was variable) Low -
Children with posterior crossbites Fixed appliance Removable appliance Molar expansion (mm) (Follow up after retention period, therefore, it was variable) Moderate -
Children with posterior crossbites Fixed appliance Removable appliance nan Very Low -
Children with posterior crossbites Fixed appliance ((rapid expansion) banded Hyrax (tooth borne)) Fixed appliance ((rapid expansion) banded Hyrax (tooth/tissue borne)) nan Very Low -
Children with posterior crossbites Fixed appliance ((rapid expansion) banded Hyrax (tooth borne)) Fixed appliance ((rapid expansion) banded Hyrax (tooth/tissue borne)) Molar expansion Very Low -
Children with posterior crossbites Fixed appliance ((rapid expansion) banded Hyrax (tooth borne)) Fixed appliance ((rapid expansion) banded Hyrax (tooth/tissue borne)) Molar expansion (3 months after completion of expansion phase) Very Low -
CD000979
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Studies
Children with crossbite Banded slow expansion Bonded slow expansion Expansion amount No Evidence Yet -
Children with crossbite Grinding +/- URA No treatment Crossbite correction (post-treatment) No Evidence Yet -
Children with crossbite Removable expansion plate Quadhelix Expansion amount No Evidence Yet -
Children with crossbite Two-point expansion Four-point Hyrax expansion Expansion amount No Evidence Yet -
Patients with crossbite Banded RME Bonded RME Expansion amount No Evidence Yet -
Patients with crossbite TPA with buccal root torque TPA without buccal root torque Crossbite correction No Evidence Yet -
CD001168
Current Version: CD001168.PUB3 | 2 older versions
Current Evidence Gaps 12 gaps
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Downgrade Reason
People with oral lichen planus Topical corticosteroids Placebo Pain resolution Low Not specified
People with oral lichen planus Triamcinolone Tacrolimus Adverse effects Low Not specified
People with oral lichen planus Triamcinolone Tacrolimus Pain resolution No Evidence Yet N/A
People with oral lichen planus Clobetasol Tacrolimus Adverse effects Very Low Not specified
People with oral lichen planus Clobetasol Tacrolimus Pain resolution Very Low Not specified
People with oral lichen planus Clobetasol Ciclosporin Clinical resolution Very Low Not specified
People with oral lichen planus Clobetasol Tacrolimus Clinical resolution Very Low Not specified
People with oral lichen planus Clobetasol Ciclosporin Adverse effects Very Low Not specified
People with oral lichen planus Clobetasol Ciclosporin Pain resolution Very Low Not specified
People with oral lichen planus Topical corticosteroids Placebo Adverse effects Very Low Not specified
People with oral lichen planus Topical corticosteroids Placebo Clinical resolution Very Low Not specified
People with oral lichen planus Triamcinolone Tacrolimus Clinical resolution Very Low Not specified
Previous Versions
CD001168.PUB2
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Studies
OLP patients Aloe vera Placebo Clinical improvement No Evidence Yet -
OLP patients Aloe vera Placebo Pain reduction No Evidence Yet -
OLP patients Antifungal+steroid Steroid alone Candidosis prevention No Evidence Yet -
OLP patients BCG-PSN Triamcinolone Pain and clinical signs No Evidence Yet -
OLP patients Curcuminoids+prednisone Prednisone alone Pain reduction No Evidence Yet -
OLP patients Cyclosporin Triamcinolone Area of ulceration No Evidence Yet -
OLP patients Cyclosporin Placebo Pain score No Evidence Yet -
OLP patients Pimecrolimus Placebo Pain reduction No Evidence Yet -
OLP patients Tacrolimus Clobetasol Pain score No Evidence Yet -
OLP patients Western-Chinese medicine Western medicine alone Clinical score No Evidence Yet -
CD001168
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Studies
Symptomatic oral lichen planus patients PUVA Placebo Treatment response No Evidence Yet -
Symptomatic oral lichen planus patients Systemic etretinate Placebo Lesion response No Evidence Yet -
Symptomatic oral lichen planus patients Topical cyclosporine Placebo Clinical signs improvement No Evidence Yet -
Symptomatic oral lichen planus patients Topical cyclosporine Placebo Symptomatic improvement No Evidence Yet -
Symptomatic oral lichen planus patients Topical retinoids Placebo Combined symptom-sign response No Evidence Yet -
Symptomatic oral lichen planus patients Topical steroids (Tyldesley study) Placebo Combined response No Evidence Yet -
Symptomatic oral lichen planus patients Topical steroids (Voute study) Placebo Clinical signs No Evidence Yet -
Symptomatic oral lichen planus patients Topical steroids (Voute study) Placebo Symptoms No Evidence Yet -
CD001476
Current Version: CD001476.PUB2 | 1 older version
Current Evidence Gaps 5 gaps
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Downgrade Reason
Patients with dentine hypersensitivity 5% potassium nitrate toothpaste Control toothpaste without potassium nitrate Subjective assessment No Evidence Yet N/A
Patients with dentine hypersensitivity 5% potassium nitrate toothpaste Control toothpaste without potassium nitrate Tactile sensitivity (method b) No Evidence Yet N/A
Patients with dentine hypersensitivity 5% potassium nitrate toothpaste Control toothpaste without potassium nitrate Tactile sensitivity (method a) No Evidence Yet N/A
Patients with dentine hypersensitivity 5% potassium nitrate toothpaste Control toothpaste without potassium nitrate Air blast sensitivity No Evidence Yet N/A
Patients with dentine hypersensitivity 5% potassium nitrate toothpaste Control toothpaste without potassium nitrate Thermal sensitivity No Evidence Yet N/A
Previous Versions
CD001476
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Studies
Patients with dentine hypersensitivity 5% potassium nitrate toothpaste Placebo toothpaste Air blast sensitivity No Evidence Yet -
Patients with dentine hypersensitivity 5% potassium nitrate toothpaste Placebo toothpaste Tactile sensitivity (method b) No Evidence Yet -
Patients with dentine hypersensitivity 5% potassium nitrate toothpaste Placebo toothpaste Tactile sensitivity (method a) No Evidence Yet -
Patients with dentine hypersensitivity 5% potassium nitrate toothpaste Placebo toothpaste Subjective assessment No Evidence Yet -
Patients with dentine hypersensitivity 5% potassium nitrate toothpaste Placebo toothpaste Thermal sensitivity No Evidence Yet -
CD001724
Current Version: CD001724.PUB2 | 1 older version
Current Evidence Gaps 11 gaps
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Downgrade Reason
Patients with periodontal defects GTR alone Open flap debridement Attachment gain No Evidence Yet N/A
Patients with periodontal defects GTR alone Open flap debridement Probing depth reduction No Evidence Yet N/A
Patients with periodontal defects GTR alone Open flap debridement Sites gaining <2mm attachment No Evidence Yet N/A
Patients with periodontal defects GTR alone Open flap debridement Gingival recession No Evidence Yet N/A
Patients with periodontal defects GTR alone Open flap debridement Bone gain (surgical re-entry) No Evidence Yet N/A
Patients with periodontal defects GTR + bone substitutes Open flap debridement Gingival recession No Evidence Yet N/A
Patients with periodontal defects GTR + bone substitutes Open flap debridement Bone gain (surgical re-entry) No Evidence Yet N/A
Patients with periodontal defects GTR + bone substitutes Open flap debridement Probing depth reduction No Evidence Yet N/A
Patients with periodontal defects GTR + bone substitutes Open flap debridement Attachment gain No Evidence Yet N/A
Patients with periodontal defects GTR (parallel group studies) Open flap debridement Attachment gain No Evidence Yet N/A
Patients with periodontal defects GTR (split-mouth studies) Open flap debridement Attachment gain No Evidence Yet N/A
Previous Versions
CD001724
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Studies
Patients with periodontal defects GTR alone Open flap debridement Change in attachment level No Evidence Yet -
Patients with periodontal defects GTR alone Open flap debridement Change in probing depth No Evidence Yet -
Patients with periodontal defects GTR alone Open flap debridement Sites gaining <2mm attachment No Evidence Yet -
Patients with periodontal defects GTR alone Open flap debridement Gingival recession No Evidence Yet -
Patients with periodontal defects GTR alone Open flap debridement Hard tissue probing gain No Evidence Yet -
Patients with periodontal defects GTR + bone substitutes Open flap debridement Hard tissue probing gain No Evidence Yet -
Patients with periodontal defects GTR + bone substitutes Open flap debridement Gingival recession No Evidence Yet -
Patients with periodontal defects GTR + bone substitutes Open flap debridement Change in probing depth No Evidence Yet -
Patients with periodontal defects GTR + bone substitutes Open flap debridement Change in attachment level No Evidence Yet -
CD001829
Current Version: CD001829.PUB4 | 3 older versions
Current Evidence Gaps 23 gaps
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Downgrade Reason
People with oral leukoplakia Bowman-Birk inhibitor Placebo Clinical resolution (not completely resolved) at 6 months Low Not specified
People with oral leukoplakia Systemic beta carotene Placebo Histological changes (not improved) at 5 months (treatment lasted 3 months) Low Not specified
People with oral leukoplakia Vitamin A or retinoids Placebo Histological changes (not improved) at 3 months Moderate Not specified
People with oral leukoplakia Bowman-Birk inhibitor Placebo Histological changes (not improved) at 6 months No Evidence Yet N/A
People with oral leukoplakia Bowman-Birk inhibitor Placebo Safety of the intervention up to 6 months No Evidence Yet N/A
People with oral leukoplakia Bowman-Birk inhibitor Placebo Cancer development No Evidence Yet N/A
People with oral leukoplakia herbal extracts a tea components; a Chinese herbal mixture; curcumin chewing gum; freeze dried black raspberry gel Placebo Clinical resolution (not completely resolved) at 3 to 6 months No Evidence Yet N/A
People with oral leukoplakia herbal extracts a tea components; a Chinese herbal mixture; curcumin chewing gum; freeze dried black raspberry gel Placebo Histological changes (not improved) at 3 months No Evidence Yet N/A
People with oral leukoplakia herbal extracts a tea components; a Chinese herbal mixture; curcumin chewing gum; freeze dried black raspberry gel Placebo Safety of the intervention over 3 months No Evidence Yet N/A
People with oral leukoplakia herbal extracts a tea components; a Chinese herbal mixture; curcumin chewing gum; freeze dried black raspberry gel Placebo Cancer development No Evidence Yet N/A
People with oral leukoplakia NSAIDs Placebo Clinical resolution (not completely resolved) at 3 months No Evidence Yet N/A
People with oral leukoplakia NSAIDs Placebo Cancer development No Evidence Yet N/A
People with oral leukoplakia NSAIDs Placebo Histological changes (not improved) No Evidence Yet N/A
People with oral leukoplakia NSAIDs Placebo Safety of the intervention over 3 months No Evidence Yet N/A
People with oral leukoplakia Systemic beta carotene Placebo Safety of the intervention at 5 to 12 months No Evidence Yet N/A
People with oral leukoplakia Systemic beta carotene Placebo Clinical resolution (not completely resolved) at 5 to 12 months No Evidence Yet N/A
People with oral leukoplakia Topical bleomycin Placebo Safety of the intervention over 3 months No Evidence Yet N/A
People with oral leukoplakia Vitamin A or retinoids Placebo Safety of the intervention at 4 to 12 months No Evidence Yet N/A
People with oral leukoplakia Vitamin A or retinoids Placebo Clinical resolution (not completely resolved) at 4 to 12 months No Evidence Yet N/A
People with oral leukoplakia Systemic beta carotene Placebo Cancer development at 24 months from start of treatment (treatment lasted 12 months) Very Low Not specified
People with oral leukoplakia Topical bleomycin Placebo Cancer development up to 7 years Very Low Not specified
People with oral leukoplakia Topical bleomycin Placebo Clinical resolution (not completely resolved) at 3 months Very Low Not specified
People with oral leukoplakia Topical bleomycin Placebo Histological changes (not improved) at 3 months Very Low Not specified
People with oral leukoplakia Vitamin A or retinoids Placebo Cancer development at 24 months from start of treatment (treatment lasted 12 months) Very Low Not specified
Previous Versions
CD001829.PUB3
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Studies
Patients with oral leukoplakia Beta carotene/lycopene Placebo Clinical resolution No Evidence Yet -
Patients with oral leukoplakia Bleomycin/vitamin A/beta carotene Placebo Malignant transformation No Evidence Yet -
Patients with oral leukoplakia Lycopene Placebo Histological improvement No Evidence Yet -
Patients with oral leukoplakia Retinoic acid Placebo Histological improvement No Evidence Yet -
Patients with oral leukoplakia Vitamin A/retinoids Placebo Clinical resolution No Evidence Yet -
CD001829.PUB2
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Studies
Patients with oral leukoplakia Beta carotene Placebo Clinical resolution No Evidence Yet -
Patients with oral leukoplakia Beta carotene Placebo Malignant transformation No Evidence Yet -
Patients with oral leukoplakia Bleomycin Placebo Malignant transformation No Evidence Yet -
Patients with oral leukoplakia Systemic 13-cis-retinoic acid Placebo Histological worsening No Evidence Yet -
Patients with oral leukoplakia Vitamin A Placebo Malignant transformation No Evidence Yet -
Patients with oral leukoplakia Vitamin A/retinoids Placebo Clinical resolution No Evidence Yet -
CD001829
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Studies
Patients with oral leukoplakia 13-cis-retinoic acid Placebo Histological worsening No Evidence Yet -
Patients with oral leukoplakia Beta carotene Placebo Clinical resolution No Evidence Yet -
Patients with oral leukoplakia Vitamin A/retinoids Placebo Clinical resolution No Evidence Yet -
CD001830
Current Version: CD001830.PUB5 | 1 older version
Current Evidence Gaps 4 gaps
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Downgrade Reason
Children and adolescents Resin-based sealant applications on occlusal tooth surfaces of permanent molars No sealant application Dentine caries in permanent molars (16% incidence in control group) Moderate Not specified
Children and adolescents Resin-based sealant applications on occlusal tooth surfaces of permanent molars No sealant application Dentine caries in permanent molars (70% incidence in control group) Moderate Not specified
Children and adolescents Resin-based sealant applications on occlusal tooth surfaces of permanent molars No sealant application Dentine caries in permanent molars (40% incidence in control group) Moderate Not specified
Children and adolescents Low viscosity glass ionomer sealant (including Fuji III, VII, GC Fuji Triage White, Ketac Silver, Ketac fil or Baseline); high viscosity glass ionomer (including Fuji IX or Ketac Molar Easymix), and resin modified glass ionomer (including Fuji II LC, Vitrebond or Vitremer) Resin sealant Adverse effects No Evidence Yet N/A
Children and adolescents Resin-based sealant applications on occlusal tooth surfaces of permanent molars No sealant application Adverse effects No Evidence Yet N/A
Children and adolescents Low-viscosity glass ionomer sealant (Fuji III and VII), and resin-modified glass ionomer (Vitremer) No sealant application Dentine caries in permanent molars Very Low Not specified
Children and adolescents Low viscosity glass ionomer sealant (including Fuji III, VII, GC Fuji Triage White, Ketac Silver, Ketac fil or Baseline); high viscosity glass ionomer (including Fuji IX or Ketac Molar Easymix), and resin modified glass ionomer (including Fuji II LC, Vitrebond or Vitremer) Resin sealant Dentine caries in permanent molars Very Low Not specified
Previous Versions
CD001830.PUB4
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Studies
Children and adolescents Resin-based sealant applications on occlusal tooth surfaces of permanent molars No sealant application Dentine caries in permanent molars (2 years follow-up) Moderate -
Children and adolescents Glass ionomer sealant applications on occlusal tooth surfaces of permanent molars No sealant application Caries as DFS increment in permanent molars (2 years follow-up) Very Low -
Children and adolescents Glass ionomer sealant (including Fuji III, VII, IX, Ketac Silver, Ketacâ fil, Ketac Molar Easymix or Baseline) Resin sealant Dentine caries in permanent molars (Follow up: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 7 years) Very Low -
Children and adolescents Polyacid-modified resin composite Resin sealant Dentine caries in permanent molars Very Low -
Children and adolescents Resin-modified glass ionomer sealant (Fuji II LC, Vitrebond or Vitremer) Resin sealant (Helioseal, Tetric Flow, Fluoroshield or Concise White) Dentine caries in permanent molars (Follow up: 1, 2 and 3 years) Very Low -
CD001972
Current Version: CD001972.PUB4 | 3 older versions
Current Evidence Gaps 5 gaps
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Downgrade Reason
Cancer patients Absorbed drugs Non-absorbed drugs Mycological eradication of oral candidiasis No Evidence Yet N/A
Cancer patients Clotrimazole 50mg Clotrimazole 10mg Mycological eradication of oral candidiasis No Evidence Yet N/A
Cancer patients Fluconazole Itraconazole Mycological eradication of oral candidiasis No Evidence Yet N/A
Cancer patients Fluconazole/Ketoconazole Nystatin/Amphotericin B Clinical eradication of oral candidiasis No Evidence Yet N/A
Cancer patients Ketoconazole Placebo Clinical eradication of oral candidiasis No Evidence Yet N/A
Previous Versions
CD001972.PUB3
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Studies
Cancer patients Clotrimazole 50mg Clotrimazole 10mg Clinical eradication of oral candidiasis No Evidence Yet -
Cancer patients Clotrimazole 50mg Clotrimazole 10mg Mycological eradication of oral candidiasis No Evidence Yet -
Cancer patients Fluconazole Nystatin Clinical eradication of oral candidiasis No Evidence Yet -
Cancer patients Ketoconazole Placebo Clinical eradication of oral candidiasis No Evidence Yet -
CD001972.PUB2
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Studies
Cancer patients Absorbed antifungals Non-absorbed antifungals Clinical eradication of oral candidiasis No Evidence Yet -
Cancer patients Clotrimazole Placebo Clinical eradication of oral candidiasis No Evidence Yet -
Cancer patients Clotrimazole 50mg Clotrimazole 10mg Mycological eradication of oral candidiasis No Evidence Yet -
Cancer patients Clotrimazole 50mg Clotrimazole 10mg Clinical eradication of oral candidiasis No Evidence Yet -
Cancer patients Ketoconazole Placebo Clinical eradication of oral candidiasis No Evidence Yet -
Cancer patients (overall) Various antifungals Various comparators All outcomes combined No Evidence Yet -
CD001972
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Studies
Cancer patients Absorbed drugs Non-absorbed drugs Clinical eradication of oral candidiasis No Evidence Yet -
Cancer patients Clotrimazole 50mg Clotrimazole 10mg Mycological eradication of oral candidiasis No Evidence Yet -
Cancer patients Clotrimazole 50mg Clotrimazole 10mg Clinical eradication of oral candidiasis No Evidence Yet -
Cancer patients Ketoconazole Placebo Clinical eradication of oral candidiasis No Evidence Yet -
Cancer patients (overall) Various antifungals Various comparators All outcomes combined No Evidence Yet -
CD001973
Current Version: CD001973.PUB4 | 3 older versions
Current Evidence Gaps 14 gaps
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Downgrade Reason
Cancer patients with mucositis Allopurinol Placebo Time to heal mucositis (days) No Evidence Yet N/A
Cancer patients with mucositis Benzydamine HCl Placebo Improvement in mucositis No Evidence Yet N/A
Cancer patients with mucositis Cognitive behaviour therapy Control Average pain score No Evidence Yet N/A
Cancer patients with mucositis GM-CSF Povidone iodine Time to heal mucositis (days) No Evidence Yet N/A
Cancer patients with mucositis GM-CSF Antimycotic mouthwash Time to heal mucositis (days) No Evidence Yet N/A
Cancer patients with mucositis Human placental extract Disprin Improvement in mucositis No Evidence Yet N/A
Cancer patients with mucositis Laser Sham treatment Mild to moderate mucositis No Evidence Yet N/A
Cancer patients with mucositis PCA morphine Continuous infusion morphine Duration of pain control (days) No Evidence Yet N/A
Cancer patients with mucositis PCA morphine Continuous infusion morphine Daily mean opiate intake (mg/hr) No Evidence Yet N/A
Cancer patients with mucositis PCA morphine Continuous infusion morphine Mean pain score No Evidence Yet N/A
Cancer patients with mucositis Polyvariant immunoglobulin Placebo Improvement in mucositis No Evidence Yet N/A
Cancer patients with mucositis Sucralfate Placebo Eradication of mucositis No Evidence Yet N/A
Cancer patients with mucositis Therapist visits Control Average pain score No Evidence Yet N/A
Cancer patients with mucositis Vitamin E topical Vitamin E swallowed Improvement in mucositis No Evidence Yet N/A
Previous Versions
CD001973.PUB3
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Studies
Cancer patients with mucositis Allopurinol Placebo Improvement in mucositis No Evidence Yet -
Cancer patients with mucositis Allopurinol Placebo Mucositis eradication No Evidence Yet -
Cancer patients with mucositis Allopurinol Placebo Time to heal mucositis No Evidence Yet -
Cancer patients with mucositis GM-CSF Placebo Improvement in mucositis No Evidence Yet -
Cancer patients with mucositis GM-CSF Povidone iodine Time to heal mucositis No Evidence Yet -
Cancer patients with mucositis Human placental extract Control Improvement in mucositis No Evidence Yet -
Cancer patients with mucositis Polyvariant intramuscular immunoglobulin Placebo Improvement in mucositis No Evidence Yet -
Cancer patients with mucositis pain Alfentanil PCA Morphine PCA Daily morphine intake No Evidence Yet -
Cancer patients with mucositis pain Morphine Nortriptyline Pain scores No Evidence Yet -
Cancer patients with mucositis pain Morphine PCA Morphine PKPCA Daily morphine intake No Evidence Yet -
Cancer patients with mucositis pain Morphine PKPCA Morphine PCA Pain scores No Evidence Yet -
Cancer patients with mucositis pain PCA Continuous infusion Duration of pain control therapy No Evidence Yet -
Cancer patients with mucositis pain PCA morphine Continuous infusion morphine Daily morphine intake No Evidence Yet -
CD001973.PUB2
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Studies
Cancer patients with mucositis Alfentanil PCA Morphine PCA Daily morphine intake No Evidence Yet -
Cancer patients with mucositis Allopurinol Placebo Improvement in mucositis No Evidence Yet -
Cancer patients with mucositis Allopurinol Placebo Mucositis eradication No Evidence Yet -
Cancer patients with mucositis Allopurinol Placebo Time to heal mucositis No Evidence Yet -
Cancer patients with mucositis GM-CSF Povidone iodine Time to heal mucositis No Evidence Yet -
Cancer patients with mucositis Human placental extract Control Improvement in mucositis No Evidence Yet -
Cancer patients with mucositis Morphine Nortriptyline Pain scores No Evidence Yet -
Cancer patients with mucositis Morphine PCA Morphine PKPCA Daily morphine intake No Evidence Yet -
Cancer patients with mucositis Morphine PKPCA Morphine PCA Pain scores No Evidence Yet -
Cancer patients with mucositis PCA Continuous infusion Duration of pain control therapy No Evidence Yet -
Cancer patients with mucositis PCA morphine Continuous infusion morphine Daily morphine intake No Evidence Yet -
Cancer patients with mucositis Polyvariant intramuscular immunoglobulin Placebo Improvement in mucositis No Evidence Yet -
CD001973
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Studies
Cancer patients with mucositis Allopurinol Placebo Mucositis eradication No Evidence Yet -
Cancer patients with mucositis Allopurinol mouthwash Placebo Improvement in mucositis No Evidence Yet -
Cancer patients with mucositis Benzydamine mouthwash Placebo Improvement in mucositis No Evidence Yet -
Cancer patients with mucositis Chlorhexidine/magic mouthwash Salt and soda Mucositis eradication No Evidence Yet -
Cancer patients with mucositis Morphine PKPCA Morphine PCA Pain scores No Evidence Yet -
Cancer patients with mucositis PCA morphine CI morphine Daily morphine utilization (mg/hr) No Evidence Yet -
Cancer patients with mucositis Sucralfate Placebo Mucositis eradication No Evidence Yet -
Cancer patients with mucositis Tetrachlorodecaoxide Placebo Improvement in mucositis No Evidence Yet -
Cancer patients with mucositis Therapist/relaxation/imagery Control Pain scores No Evidence Yet -
Cancer patients with mucositis Vitamin E Placebo Mucositis eradication No Evidence Yet -
CD002278
Current Version: CD002278
Current Evidence Gaps 7 gaps
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Downgrade Reason
Children aged 5-16 years Fluoride toothpaste Placebo/non-fluoride toothpaste D(M)FT standardized difference No Evidence Yet N/A
Children aged 5-16 years Fluoride toothpaste Placebo/non-fluoride toothpaste D(M)FS standardized difference No Evidence Yet N/A
Children aged 5-16 years Fluoride toothpaste Placebo/non-fluoride toothpaste D(M)FT prevented fraction No Evidence Yet N/A
Children aged 5-16 years Fluoride toothpaste Placebo/non-fluoride toothpaste D(M)FS prevented fraction No Evidence Yet N/A
Children aged 5-16 years Fluoride toothpaste Placebo/non-fluoride toothpaste Proportion developing new caries No Evidence Yet N/A
Children aged 5-16 years Stannous fluoride toothpaste Placebo toothpaste Proportion with tooth staining No Evidence Yet N/A
Children aged 6-9 years Fluoride toothpaste Placebo/non-fluoride toothpaste df-rate in deciduous teeth No Evidence Yet N/A
CD002279
Current Version: CD002279.PUB2 | 1 older version
Current Evidence Gaps
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Downgrade Reason
Children and adolescents Fluoride varnish No treatment/placebo Permanent tooth surfaces D(M)FS increment PF - nearest to 3 years Moderate Not specified
Children and adolescents Fluoride varnish No treatment/placebo Deciduous tooth surfaces d((e)/m)fs increment PF - nearest to 3 years Moderate Not specified
Previous Versions
CD002279
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Studies
Children aged 3-15 years Fluoride varnish Placebo or no treatment Deciduous teeth caries (d(e/m)fs standardized difference) No Evidence Yet -
Children aged 3-15 years Fluoride varnish Placebo or no treatment Treatment discontinuation (dropouts) No Evidence Yet -
Children aged 3-15 years Fluoride varnish Placebo or no treatment Proportion developing new caries No Evidence Yet -
Children aged 3-15 years Fluoride varnish Placebo or no treatment Deciduous teeth caries (d(e/m)fs prevented fraction) No Evidence Yet -
Children aged 3-15 years Fluoride varnish Placebo or no treatment D(M)FT standardized difference No Evidence Yet -
Children aged 3-15 years Fluoride varnish Placebo or no treatment D(M)FS standardized difference No Evidence Yet -
Children aged 3-15 years Fluoride varnish Placebo or no treatment D(M)FT prevented fraction No Evidence Yet -
Children aged 3-15 years Fluoride varnish Placebo or no treatment D(M)FS prevented fraction No Evidence Yet -
CD002280
Current Version: CD002280.PUB2 | 1 older version
Current Evidence Gaps 2 gaps
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Downgrade Reason
Children and adolescents Fluoride gel Placebo or no treatment Changes in caries on the surfaces of primary teeth Low Not specified
Children and adolescents Fluoride gel Placebo or no treatment Changes in caries on the surfaces of permanent teeth Moderate Not specified
Children and adolescents Fluoride gel Placebo or no treatment Signs of acute toxicity - nausea, vomiting Very Low Not specified
Previous Versions
CD002280
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Studies
Children aged 2-15 years Fluoride gel Placebo/No treatment Proportion not remaining caries-free No Evidence Yet -
Children aged 2-15 years Fluoride gel Placebo/No treatment Proportion developing new caries No Evidence Yet -
Children aged 2-15 years Fluoride gel No treatment D(M)FT prevented fraction No Evidence Yet -
Children aged 2-15 years Fluoride gel Placebo D(M)FT prevented fraction No Evidence Yet -
Children aged 2-15 years Fluoride gel No treatment D(M)FS prevented fraction No Evidence Yet -
Children aged 2-15 years Fluoride gel Placebo D(M)FS prevented fraction No Evidence Yet -
Children aged 2-15 years Fluoride gel Placebo/No treatment Adverse events (nausea/vomiting) No Evidence Yet -
Children aged 2-15 years Fluoride gel No treatment Treatment discontinuation No Evidence Yet -
CD002281
Current Version: CD002281.PUB3 | 2 older versions
Current Evidence Gaps 1 gap
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Downgrade Reason
Individuals of any age with no reported disability that might affect toothbrushing Powered toothbrushes with any mode of action Manual toothbrushes Plaque scores at 1 to 3 months Moderate Not specified
Individuals of any age with no reported disability that might affect toothbrushing Powered toothbrushes with any mode of action Manual toothbrushes Gingival scores at 1 to 3 months Moderate Not specified
Individuals of any age with no reported disability that might affect toothbrushing Powered toothbrushes with any mode of action Manual toothbrushes Adverse events No Evidence Yet N/A
Previous Versions
CD002281.PUB2
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Studies
Adults with teeth Circular powered toothbrush Manual toothbrush Plaque and gingivitis No Evidence Yet -
Adults with teeth Counter oscillation powered toothbrush Manual toothbrush Plaque (>3 months) No Evidence Yet -
Adults with teeth Ionic powered toothbrush Manual toothbrush Plaque (>3 months) No Evidence Yet -
Adults with teeth Ionic powered toothbrush Manual toothbrush Gingivitis (>3 months) No Evidence Yet -
Adults with teeth Rotation oscillation powered toothbrush Manual toothbrush Gingivitis (1-3 months) No Evidence Yet -
Adults with teeth Rotation oscillation powered toothbrush Manual toothbrush Gingivitis (>3 months) No Evidence Yet -
Adults with teeth Rotation oscillation powered toothbrush Manual toothbrush Plaque (1-3 months) No Evidence Yet -
Adults with teeth Side to side powered toothbrush Manual toothbrush Plaque (1-3 months) No Evidence Yet -
Adults with teeth Side to side powered toothbrush Manual toothbrush Gingivitis (1-3 months) No Evidence Yet -
Adults with teeth Ultrasonic powered toothbrush Manual toothbrush Gingivitis (<3 months) No Evidence Yet -
Adults with teeth Unknown powered toothbrush Manual toothbrush Gingivitis (<3 months) No Evidence Yet -
CD002281
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Studies
Adults with teeth Circular powered toothbrush Manual toothbrush Plaque and gingivitis No Evidence Yet -
Adults with teeth Counter oscillation powered toothbrush Manual toothbrush Plaque (>3 months) No Evidence Yet -
Adults with teeth Rotation oscillation powered toothbrush Manual toothbrush Gingivitis (1-3 months) No Evidence Yet -
Adults with teeth Rotation oscillation powered toothbrush Manual toothbrush Plaque (1-3 months) No Evidence Yet -
Adults with teeth Rotation oscillation powered toothbrush Manual toothbrush Plaque (>3 months) No Evidence Yet -
Adults with teeth Rotation oscillation powered toothbrush Manual toothbrush Gingivitis (>3 months) No Evidence Yet -
Adults with teeth Side to side powered toothbrush Manual toothbrush Gingivitis (1-3 months) No Evidence Yet -
Adults with teeth Side to side powered toothbrush Manual toothbrush Plaque (1-3 months) No Evidence Yet -
Adults with teeth Ultrasonic powered toothbrush Manual toothbrush Plaque (1-3 months) No Evidence Yet -
CD002282
Current Version: CD002282.PUB2 | 1 older version
Current Evidence Gaps 4 gaps
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Downgrade Reason
Orthodontic patients Chemical cured composite Glass ionomer cement Bracket failure rate No Evidence Yet N/A
Orthodontic patients Chemical cured composite Light cured composite Bracket failure rate No Evidence Yet N/A
Orthodontic patients Chemical cured composite Compomer (Dyract Ortho) Bracket failure rate No Evidence Yet N/A
Orthodontic patients Chemical cured composite Compomer (Dyract Ortho) Decalcification No Evidence Yet N/A
Previous Versions
CD002282
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Studies
Orthodontic patients Chemical cured composite Glass ionomer cement Bracket failure rate No Evidence Yet -
Orthodontic patients Chemical cured composite (Right-On) Compomer (Dyract Ortho) Bracket failure rate No Evidence Yet -
Orthodontic patients Chemical cured composite (Right-On) Compomer (Dyract Ortho) Decalcification No Evidence Yet -
Orthodontic patients Light cured composite Chemical cured composite Bracket failure rate No Evidence Yet -
CD002283
Current Version: CD002283.PUB5 | 3 older versions
Current Evidence Gaps 28 gaps
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Downgrade Reason
People who had received fixed appliance treatment CAD/CAM nitinol fixed retainer Conventional/analogue multistrand fixed retainer Adverse effects on oral health (Gingival Index) Low Not specified
People who had received fixed appliance treatment Fibre-reinforced composite retainer Multistrand/spiral wire fixed retainer Survival (Failure of retainer) Low Not specified
People who had received fixed appliance treatment CAD/CAM nitinol fixed retainer Conventional/analogue multistrand fixed retainer Patient satisfaction (Discomfort/pain) No Evidence Yet N/A
People who had received fixed appliance treatment CAD/CAM nitinol fixed retainer Conventional/analogue multistrand fixed retainer Adverse effects on oral health (Bleeding on probing) No Evidence Yet N/A
People who had received fixed appliance treatment Fibre-reinforced composite retainer Multistrand/spiral wire fixed retainer Survival (Mean survival time) No Evidence Yet N/A
People who had received fixed appliance treatment Fibre-reinforced composite retainer Multistrand/spiral wire fixed retainer Adverse effects on oral health (Gingival Index) No Evidence Yet N/A
People who had received fixed appliance treatment Fibre-reinforced composite retainer Multistrand/spiral wire fixed retainer Adverse effects on oral health (Bleeding on probing) No Evidence Yet N/A
People who had received fixed appliance treatment Full-time wear of any type of removable retainer Part-time wear of any type of removable retainer Adverse effects on oral health No Evidence Yet N/A
People who had received fixed appliance treatment Full-time wear of any type of removable retainer Part-time wear of any type of removable retainer Survival No Evidence Yet N/A
People who had received fixed appliance treatment Full-time wear of any type of removable retainer Part-time wear of any type of removable retainer Patient satisfaction No Evidence Yet N/A
People who had received fixed appliance treatment Hawley removable retainer (any coincident wearing protocol between treatment arms) Clear plastic removable retainer (any coincident wearing protocol between treatment arms) Adverse effects on oral health No Evidence Yet N/A
People who had received fixed appliance treatment Hawley removable retainer (any coincident wearing protocol between treatment arms) Clear plastic removable retainer (any coincident wearing protocol between treatment arms) Patient satisfaction (Comfort) No Evidence Yet N/A
People who had received fixed appliance treatment CAD/CAM nitinol fixed retainer Conventional/analogue multistrand fixed retainer Stability (Little's Irregularity Index) Very Low Not specified
People who had received fixed appliance treatment CAD/CAM nitinol fixed retainer Conventional/analogue multistrand fixed retainer Survival (Failure of retainer) Very Low Not specified
People who had received fixed appliance treatment Fibre-reinforced composite retainer Multistrand/spiral wire fixed retainer Patient satisfaction (Aesthetic) Very Low Not specified
People who had received fixed appliance treatment Fibre-reinforced composite retainer Multistrand/spiral wire fixed retainer Stability (Little's Irregularity Index) Very Low Not specified
People who had received fixed appliance treatment Full-time clear plastic removable retainer Any type of fixed retainer Survival (Failure of retainer) Very Low Not specified
People who had received fixed appliance treatment Full-time clear plastic removable retainer Any type of fixed retainer Stability (Little's Irregularity Index) Very Low Not specified
People who had received fixed appliance treatment Full-time clear plastic removable retainer Any type of fixed retainer Patient satisfaction (Discomfort/pain) Very Low Not specified
People who had received fixed appliance treatment Full-time clear plastic removable retainer Any type of fixed retainer Adverse effects on oral health (Caries) Very Low Not specified
People who had received fixed appliance treatment Full-time clear plastic removable retainer Any type of fixed retainer Adverse effects on oral health (Gingival bleeding) Very Low Not specified
People who had received fixed appliance treatment Full-time wear of any type of removable retainer Part-time wear of any type of removable retainer Stability (Little's Irregularity Index) Very Low Not specified
People who had received fixed appliance treatment Hawley removable retainer (any coincident wearing protocol between treatment arms) Clear plastic removable retainer (any coincident wearing protocol between treatment arms) Survival (Failure of retainer) Very Low Not specified
People who had received fixed appliance treatment Hawley removable retainer (any coincident wearing protocol between treatment arms) Clear plastic removable retainer (any coincident wearing protocol between treatment arms) Stability (Little's Irregularity Index) Very Low Not specified
People who had received fixed appliance treatment Part-time clear plastic removable retainers Any type of fixed retainer Patient satisfaction (Discomfort/pain) Very Low Not specified
People who had received fixed appliance treatment Part-time clear plastic removable retainers Any type of fixed retainer Stability (Little's Irregularity Index) Very Low Not specified
People who had received fixed appliance treatment Part-time clear plastic removable retainers Any type of fixed retainer Survival (Failure of retainer) Very Low Not specified
People who had received fixed appliance treatment Part-time clear plastic removable retainers Any type of fixed retainer Adverse effects on oral health (Gingival Index) Very Low Not specified
Previous Versions
CD002283.PUB4
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Studies
People who had received fixed appliance treatment Removable retainers Fixed retainers Patient satisfaction Low -
People who had received fixed appliance treatment Removable retainers Fixed retainers Adverse effects on health (gingival bleeding) Low -
People who had received fixed appliance treatment Removable retainers Fixed retainers Stability - Little's Irregularity Index in lower arch Low -
People who have received fixed appliance treatment One type of fixed retainer Another type of fixed retainer Failure of retainers (lower arch) Low -
People who have received fixed appliance treatment One type of removable retainer or wear time Another type of removable retainer or wear time Patient satisfaction (Embarrassed to wear retainer) Low -
People who have received fixed appliance treatment One type of removable retainer or wear time Another type of removable retainer or wear time Failure of retainers Low -
People who have received fixed appliance treatment One type of fixed retainer Another type of fixed retainer Adverse effects on health No Evidence Yet -
People who have received fixed appliance treatment One type of fixed retainer Another type of fixed retainer Stability - Little's Irregularity Index No Evidence Yet -
People who have received fixed appliance treatment One type of fixed retainer Another type of fixed retainer Patient satisfaction No Evidence Yet -
People who have received fixed appliance treatment One type of removable retainer or wear time Another type of removable retainer or wear time Adverse effects on health No Evidence Yet -
People who had received fixed appliance treatment Removable retainers Fixed retainers Failure of retainers (lower) Very Low -
CD002283.PUB3
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Studies
Orthodontic patients CSF + full-time removable retainer Full-time removable retainer only Maxillary anterior stability No Evidence Yet -
Orthodontic patients CSF + full-time removable retainer Full-time removable retainer only Mandibular anterior stability No Evidence Yet -
Orthodontic patients CSF + night-only retainer Night-only retainer Change in keratinized gingiva No Evidence Yet -
Orthodontic patients CSF + night-only retainer Night-only retainer Change in epithelial attachment No Evidence Yet -
Orthodontic patients Hawley retainer Clear overlay retainer Number of occlusal contacts No Evidence Yet -
Orthodontic patients Resin bonded retainer Multistrand wire retainer Retainer failure rate No Evidence Yet -
CD002283.PUB2
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Studies
Orthodontic patients CSF + full-time removable retainer Full-time removable retainer only Mandibular anterior segment stability No Evidence Yet -
Orthodontic patients CSF + full-time removable retainer Full-time removable retainer only Maxillary anterior segment stability No Evidence Yet -
Orthodontic patients CSF + night-only retainer Night-only retainer Change in keratinized gingiva No Evidence Yet -
Orthodontic patients CSF + night-only retainer Night-only retainer Change in epithelial attachment No Evidence Yet -
Orthodontic patients Hawley retainer Clear overlay retainer Number of occlusal contacts No Evidence Yet -
Showing 1 to 20 of 214 review series
Summary Statistics
214
Review Series
3688
PICO Questions
Evidence Certainty
High
(%)
Moderate
(%)
Low
(%)
Very Low
(%)
No Evidence Yet
(%)
GRADE Downgrading Reasons
Risk of Bias
985 (85.8%)
Imprecision
895 (78.0%)
Inconsistency
253 (22.0%)
Indirectness
188 (16.4%)
Publication Bias
48 (4.2%)