Evidence Gaps Analysis

3688 outcomes from 214 review series
Clear
CD012213
Current Version: CD012213.PUB2
Current Evidence Gaps 21 gaps
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Downgrade Reason
patients reporting halitosis brushing + cetylpyridium mouthwash brushing Dentist-reported OLT score Low Not specified
patients reporting halitosis 0.3% triclosan toothpaste control toothpaste Patient-reported OLT score No Evidence Yet N/A
patients reporting halitosis 0.3% triclosan toothpaste control toothpaste Adverse events No Evidence Yet N/A
patients reporting halitosis 0.6% eucalyptus chewing gum placebo chewing gum Patient-reported OLT score No Evidence Yet N/A
patients reporting halitosis 0.6% eucalyptus chewing gum placebo chewing gum Adverse events No Evidence Yet N/A
patients reporting halitosis 1000 mg champignon placebo Adverse events No Evidence Yet N/A
patients reporting halitosis 1000 mg champignon placebo Dentist-reported OLT score No Evidence Yet N/A
patients reporting halitosis brushing + cetylpyridium mouthwash brushing Patient-reported OLT score No Evidence Yet N/A
patients reporting halitosis brushing + cetylpyridium mouthwash brushing Adverse events No Evidence Yet N/A
patients reporting halitosis hinokitiol gel placebo gel Patient-reported OLT score No Evidence Yet N/A
patients reporting halitosis hinokitiol gel placebo gel Adverse events No Evidence Yet N/A
patients reporting halitosis mechanical tongue cleaning no tongue cleaning Patient-reported OLT score No Evidence Yet N/A
patients reporting halitosis mechanical tongue cleaning no tongue cleaning Adverse events No Evidence Yet N/A
patients reporting halitosis mouthwash containing chlorhexidine and zinc acetate placebo mouthwash Adverse events No Evidence Yet N/A
patients reporting halitosis mouthwash containing chlorhexidine and zinc acetate placebo mouthwash Patient-reported OLT score No Evidence Yet N/A
patients reporting halitosis 0.3% triclosan toothpaste control toothpaste Dentist-reported breath odour score Very Low Not specified
patients reporting halitosis 0.6% eucalyptus chewing gum placebo chewing gum Dentist-reported OLT score Very Low Not specified
patients reporting halitosis 1000 mg champignon placebo Patient-reported VAS Very Low Not specified
patients reporting halitosis hinokitiol gel placebo gel Dentist-reported OLT score Very Low Not specified
patients reporting halitosis mechanical tongue cleaning no tongue cleaning Dentist-reported OLT score Very Low Not specified
patients reporting halitosis mouthwash containing chlorhexidine and zinc acetate placebo mouthwash Dentist-reported OLT score Very Low Not specified
CD012256
Current Version: CD012256.PUB2
Current Evidence Gaps 18 gaps
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Downgrade Reason
Completely edentulous people Alginate Silicone Participant-reported oral health-related quality of life (OHIP-EDENT) Low Not specified
People requiring removable partial dentures Altered cast One-piece cast Participant-reported quality of the denture: general satisfaction Low Not specified
Completely edentulous people Alginate Silicone Participant‐reported quality of the denture Follow‐up: two weeks No Evidence Yet N/A
Completely edentulous people Alginate Silicone Number of border adjustments and sore spots after insertion of denture Follow‐up: two weeks No Evidence Yet N/A
Completely edentulous people Single stage with alginate Two stage-two step elastomer Number of border adjustments and sore spots after insertion of denture No Evidence Yet N/A
Completely edentulous people Single-stage with alginate Two step-two stage with ZoE Number of border adjustments and sore spots after insertion of denture No Evidence Yet N/A
Completely edentulous people Wax Polysulfide rubber Participant‐reported oral health‐related quality of life (OHIP‐EDENT) No Evidence Yet N/A
Completely edentulous people Wax Polysulfide rubber Participant‐reported quality of the denture No Evidence Yet N/A
People requiring removable partial dentures Altered cast One-piece cast Participant‐reported oral health‐related quality of life No Evidence Yet N/A
Completely edentulous people Biofunctional prosthetic system (Accu-dent System) Traditional technique Number of border adjustments and sore spots after insertion of denture Very Low Not specified
Completely edentulous people Biofunctional prosthetic system (Accu-dent System) Traditional technique Participant-reported quality of the denture - denture satisfaction Very Low Not specified
Completely edentulous people Biofunctional prosthetic system (Accu-dent System) Traditional technique Participant-reported oral health-related quality of life (OHIP-EDENT) Very Low Not specified
Completely edentulous people Single stage with alginate Two stage-two step elastomer Participant-reported oral health-related quality of life (OHIP-EDENT) Very Low Not specified
Completely edentulous people Single stage with alginate Two stage-two step elastomer Participant-reported quality of the denture - general satisfaction Very Low Not specified
Completely edentulous people Single-stage with alginate Two step-two stage with ZoE Participant-reported oral health-related quality of life (OHIP-EDENT) Very Low Not specified
Completely edentulous people Single-stage with alginate Two step-two stage with ZoE Participant-reported quality of the denture: general satisfaction Very Low Not specified
Completely edentulous people Wax Polysulfide rubber Number of border adjustments and sore spots after insertion of denture Very Low Not specified
People requiring removable partial dentures Altered cast One-piece cast Number of intaglio adjustments Very Low Not specified
CD012293
Current Version: CD012293.PUB2
Current Evidence Gaps
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Downgrade Reason
People on continuous oral anticoagulant treatment Antifibrinolytic therapy (tranexamic acid (TXA) OR epsilon aminocaproic acid (EACA)) Placebo Postoperative bleedings requiring intervention (placebo control, 7 days follow-up) Moderate Not specified
People on continuous oral anticoagulant treatment Antifibrinolytic therapy (tranexamic acid (TXA) OR epsilon aminocaproic acid (EACA)) Standard Care Postoperative bleedings requiring intervention (standard care control, 7 days follow-up) Moderate Not specified
People on continuous oral anticoagulant treatment Antifibrinolytic therapy (tranexamic acid (TXA) OR epsilon aminocaproic acid (EACA)) Placebo Side effects or other adverse events requiring withdrawal (placebo control, 7 days follow-up) Moderate Not specified
CD012416
Current Version: CD012416.PUB3 | 1 older version
Current Evidence Gaps 4 gaps
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Downgrade Reason
older adults professional oral care usual oral care Incidence of NHAP Low Not specified
older adults professional oral care usual oral care Mortality (pneumonia-associated) Low Not specified
older adults professional oral care usual oral care Adverse effects of interventions No Evidence Yet N/A
older adults professional oral care usual oral care Mortality (all-cause) Very Low Not specified
Previous Versions
CD012416.PUB2
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Studies
elderly people professional oral care usual oral care Mortality (pneumonia-associated) Low -
elderly people professional oral care usual oral care Incidence rate of NHAP Low -
elderly people professional oral care usual oral care Incidence proportion (cumulative incidence) of NHAP Low -
elderly people oral care no oral care Adverse effects of interventions No Evidence Yet -
elderly people oral care no oral care Incidence rate of NHAP No Evidence Yet -
elderly people oral care no oral care Incidence proportion of NHAP No Evidence Yet -
elderly people oral care no oral care Mortality (pneumonia-associated) No Evidence Yet -
elderly people oral care no oral care Mortality (all-cause) No Evidence Yet -
elderly people professional oral care usual oral care Mortality (all-cause) Very Low -
CD012432
Current Version: CD012432.PUB3 | 1 older version
Current Evidence Gaps 11 gaps
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Downgrade Reason
People on antiresorptive treatment Subperiosteal wound closure Epiperiosteal wound closure after tooth extraction MRONJ after tooth extraction Low Not specified
People with MRONJ Teriparatide 20 μg daily Placebo Healing of MRONJ Low Not specified
People at risk of MRONJ Dental examinations at three-month intervals and preventive treatments Standard care MRONJ (incidence proportion) Very Low Not specified
People treated with IV bisphosphonates who need dental extractions Dental extraction protocol with PRGF Standard dental extraction protocol without PRGF MRONJ (incidence proportion) Very Low Not specified
People with MRONJ Autofluorescence-guided bone surgery Tetracycline fluorescence-guided bone surgery Healing of MRONJ Very Low Not specified
People with MRONJ Autofluorescence-guided surgery Conventional surgery Healing of MRONJ Very Low Not specified
People with MRONJ Bone morphogenetic protein-2 together with platelet-rich fibrin Platelet-rich fibrin alone Healing of MRONJ Very Low Not specified
People with MRONJ Concentrated growth factor and primary wound closure Primary wound closure only Healing of MRONJ Very Low Not specified
People with MRONJ HBO as an adjunct to conventional therapy Conventional therapy Healing of MRONJ Very Low Not specified
People with MRONJ Platelet-rich fibrin after bone surgery Surgery alone Healing of MRONJ Very Low Not specified
People with MRONJ Teriparatide 56.5 μg weekly Teriparatide 20 μg daily Healing of MRONJ Very Low Not specified
Previous Versions
CD012432.PUB2
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Studies
prophylaxis of MRONJ dental examinations at three-month intervals and preventive treatments standard care MRONJ (incidence proportion) Low -
people treated with IV bisphosphonates who need dental extractions a dental extraction protocol with PRGF a standard dental extraction protocol without PRGF MRONJ (incidence proportion) Very Low -
treatment of MRONJ autofluorescence-guided bone surgery tetracycline fluorescence-guided bone surgery Healing of MRONJ Very Low -
treatment of MRONJ hyperbaric oxygen therapy as an adjunct to conventional therapy conventional therapy Healing of MRONJ Very Low -
CD012568
Current Version: CD012568.PUB2
Current Evidence Gaps 70 gaps
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Downgrade Reason
Adults with periodontitis (aggressive) Clindamycin + SRP Doxycycline + SRP Antimicrobial resistance No Evidence Yet N/A
Adults with periodontitis (aggressive) Clindamycin + SRP Metronidazole + SRP Percentage of BOP No Evidence Yet N/A
Adults with periodontitis (aggressive) Clindamycin + SRP Metronidazole + SRP Antimicrobial resistance No Evidence Yet N/A
Adults with periodontitis (aggressive) Clindamycin + SRP Metronidazole + SRP Adverse events No Evidence Yet N/A
Adults with periodontitis (aggressive) Clindamycin + SRP SRP Antimicrobial resistance No Evidence Yet N/A
Adults with periodontitis (aggressive) Clindamycin + SRP Doxycycline + SRP Patient-reported quality of life changes No Evidence Yet N/A
Adults with periodontitis (aggressive) Clindamycin + SRP Metronidazole + SRP Patient-reported quality of life changes No Evidence Yet N/A
Adults with periodontitis (aggressive) Clindamycin + SRP SRP Patient-reported quality of life changes No Evidence Yet N/A
Adults with periodontitis (aggressive) Clindamycin + SRP SRP Percentage of closed pockets No Evidence Yet N/A
Adults with periodontitis (aggressive) Clindamycin + SRP SRP Adverse events No Evidence Yet N/A
Adults with periodontitis (aggressive) Clindamycin + SRP Doxycycline + SRP Probing pocket depth No Evidence Yet N/A
Adults with periodontitis (aggressive) Clindamycin + SRP SRP Percentage of BOP No Evidence Yet N/A
Adults with periodontitis (aggressive) Clindamycin + SRP Doxycycline + SRP Percentage of BOP No Evidence Yet N/A
Adults with periodontitis (aggressive) Clindamycin + SRP Metronidazole + SRP Percentage of closed pockets No Evidence Yet N/A
Adults with periodontitis (aggressive) Clindamycin + SRP Doxycycline + SRP Adverse events No Evidence Yet N/A
Adults with periodontitis (aggressive) Doxycycline + SRP Metronidazole + SRP Percentage of BOP No Evidence Yet N/A
Adults with periodontitis (aggressive) Doxycycline + SRP SRP Antimicrobial resistance No Evidence Yet N/A
Adults with periodontitis (aggressive) Doxycycline + SRP SRP Adverse events No Evidence Yet N/A
Adults with periodontitis (aggressive) Doxycycline + SRP SRP Patient-reported quality of life changes No Evidence Yet N/A
Adults with periodontitis (aggressive) Doxycycline + SRP Metronidazole + SRP Patient-reported quality of life changes No Evidence Yet N/A
Adults with periodontitis (aggressive) Doxycycline + SRP Metronidazole + SRP Adverse events No Evidence Yet N/A
Adults with periodontitis (aggressive) Doxycycline + SRP Metronidazole + SRP Antimicrobial resistance No Evidence Yet N/A
Adults with periodontitis (aggressive) Doxycycline + SRP SRP Percentage of BOP No Evidence Yet N/A
Adults with periodontitis (aggressive) Doxycycline + SRP Metronidazole + SRP Percentage of closed pockets No Evidence Yet N/A
Adults with periodontitis (aggressive) Doxycycline + SRP SRP Percentage of closed pockets No Evidence Yet N/A
Adults with periodontitis (aggressive) Tetracycline + SRP SRP Percentage of closed pockets No Evidence Yet N/A
Adults with periodontitis (aggressive) Tetracycline + SRP SRP Probing pocket depth No Evidence Yet N/A
Adults with periodontitis (aggressive) Tetracycline + SRP SRP Percentage of BOP No Evidence Yet N/A
Adults with periodontitis (aggressive) Tetracycline + SRP SRP Antimicrobial resistance No Evidence Yet N/A
Adults with periodontitis (aggressive) Tetracycline + SRP SRP Adverse events No Evidence Yet N/A
Adults with periodontitis (aggressive) Tetracycline + SRP SRP Patient-reported quality of life changes No Evidence Yet N/A
Adults with periodontitis (chronic) Amoxicillin + clavulanate + SRP SRP Antimicrobial resistance No Evidence Yet N/A
Adults with periodontitis (chronic) Amoxicillin + clavulanate + SRP SRP Patient-reported quality of life changes No Evidence Yet N/A
Adults with periodontitis (chronic) Amoxicillin + clavulanate + SRP SRP Percentage of closed pockets No Evidence Yet N/A
Adults with periodontitis (chronic/aggressive) Amoxicillin + metronidazole + SRP SRP Patient-reported quality of life changes No Evidence Yet N/A
Adults with periodontitis (chronic/aggressive) Amoxicillin + metronidazole + SRP SRP Antimicrobial resistance No Evidence Yet N/A
Adults with periodontitis (chronic/aggressive) Azithromycin + SRP SRP Antimicrobial resistance No Evidence Yet N/A
Adults with periodontitis (chronic/aggressive) Azithromycin + SRP SRP Patient-reported quality of life changes No Evidence Yet N/A
Adults with periodontitis (chronic/aggressive) Metronidazole + SRP SRP Patient-reported quality of life changes No Evidence Yet N/A
Adults with periodontitis (chronic/aggressive) Metronidazole + SRP SRP Antimicrobial resistance No Evidence Yet N/A
Adults with periodontitis (aggressive) Clindamycin + SRP SRP CAL Very Low Not specified
Adults with periodontitis (aggressive) Clindamycin + SRP Doxycycline + SRP Percentage of closed pockets Very Low Not specified
Adults with periodontitis (aggressive) Clindamycin + SRP Metronidazole + SRP Probing pocket depth Very Low Not specified
Adults with periodontitis (aggressive) Clindamycin + SRP Metronidazole + SRP CAL Very Low Not specified
Adults with periodontitis (aggressive) Clindamycin + SRP SRP Probing pocket depth Very Low Not specified
Adults with periodontitis (aggressive) Clindamycin + SRP Doxycycline + SRP CAL Very Low Not specified
Adults with periodontitis (aggressive) Doxycycline + SRP Metronidazole + SRP CAL Very Low Not specified
Adults with periodontitis (aggressive) Doxycycline + SRP SRP Probing pocket depth Very Low Not specified
Adults with periodontitis (aggressive) Doxycycline + SRP SRP CAL Very Low Not specified
Adults with periodontitis (aggressive) Doxycycline + SRP Metronidazole + SRP Probing pocket depth Very Low Not specified
Adults with periodontitis (aggressive) Tetracycline + SRP SRP CAL Very Low Not specified
Adults with periodontitis (chronic) Amoxicillin + clavulanate + SRP SRP Adverse events Very Low Not specified
Adults with periodontitis (chronic) Amoxicillin + clavulanate + SRP SRP Probing pocket depth Very Low Not specified
Adults with periodontitis (chronic) Amoxicillin + clavulanate + SRP SRP Percentage of BOP Very Low Not specified
Adults with periodontitis (chronic) Amoxicillin + clavulanate + SRP SRP CAL Very Low Not specified
Adults with periodontitis (chronic/aggressive) Amoxicillin + metronidazole + SRP SRP CAL Very Low Not specified
Adults with periodontitis (chronic/aggressive) Amoxicillin + metronidazole + SRP SRP Percentage of closed pockets Very Low Not specified
Adults with periodontitis (chronic/aggressive) Amoxicillin + metronidazole + SRP SRP Probing pocket depth Very Low Not specified
Adults with periodontitis (chronic/aggressive) Amoxicillin + metronidazole + SRP SRP Percentage of BOP Very Low Not specified
Adults with periodontitis (chronic/aggressive) Amoxicillin + metronidazole + SRP SRP Adverse events Very Low Not specified
Adults with periodontitis (chronic/aggressive) Azithromycin + SRP SRP Percentage of BOP Very Low Not specified
Adults with periodontitis (chronic/aggressive) Azithromycin + SRP SRP Percentage of closed pockets Very Low Not specified
Adults with periodontitis (chronic/aggressive) Azithromycin + SRP SRP Adverse events Very Low Not specified
Adults with periodontitis (chronic/aggressive) Azithromycin + SRP SRP CAL Very Low Not specified
Adults with periodontitis (chronic/aggressive) Azithromycin + SRP SRP Probing pocket depth Very Low Not specified
Adults with periodontitis (chronic/aggressive) Metronidazole + SRP SRP Percentage of closed pockets Very Low Not specified
Adults with periodontitis (chronic/aggressive) Metronidazole + SRP SRP Percentage of BOP Very Low Not specified
Adults with periodontitis (chronic/aggressive) Metronidazole + SRP SRP Probing pocket depth Very Low Not specified
Adults with periodontitis (chronic/aggressive) Metronidazole + SRP SRP CAL Very Low Not specified
Adults with periodontitis (chronic/aggressive) Metronidazole + SRP SRP Adverse events Very Low Not specified
CD012595
Current Version: CD012595.PUB4 | 2 older versions
Current Evidence Gaps 29 gaps
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Downgrade Reason
school children in UK criteria-based screening no screening Dental attendance Low Not specified
school children in India traditional screening with motivation traditional screening Proportion of children with other treated/untreated oral health need No Evidence Yet N/A
school children in India traditional screening with motivation traditional screening Adverse events No Evidence Yet N/A
school children in India traditional screening with motivation traditional screening Proportion of children with treated/untreated caries No Evidence Yet N/A
school children in Saudi Arabia referral to specific treatment facility advice letter to see a dentist Proportion of children with treated/untreated caries No Evidence Yet N/A
school children in Saudi Arabia referral to specific treatment facility advice letter to see a dentist Adverse events No Evidence Yet N/A
school children in Saudi Arabia referral to specific treatment facility advice letter to see a dentist Proportion of children with other treated/untreated oral health need No Evidence Yet N/A
school children in UK criteria-based screening traditional screening Proportion of children with treated/untreated caries No Evidence Yet N/A
school children in UK criteria-based screening no screening Adverse events No Evidence Yet N/A
school children in UK criteria-based screening no screening Proportion of children with other treated/untreated oral health need No Evidence Yet N/A
school children in UK criteria-based screening no screening Proportion of children with treated/untreated caries No Evidence Yet N/A
school children in UK criteria-based screening traditional screening Proportion of children with other treated/untreated oral health need No Evidence Yet N/A
school children in UK criteria-based screening traditional screening Adverse events No Evidence Yet N/A
school children in UK criteria-based screening with specific referral criteria-based screening with non-specific referral Adverse events No Evidence Yet N/A
school children in UK criteria-based screening with specific referral criteria-based screening with non-specific referral Proportion of children with treated/untreated caries No Evidence Yet N/A
school children in UK criteria-based screening with specific referral criteria-based screening with non-specific referral Proportion of children with other treated/untreated oral health need No Evidence Yet N/A
school children in UK and India traditional screening no screening Proportion of children with other treated/untreated oral health need No Evidence Yet N/A
school children in UK and India traditional screening no screening Adverse events No Evidence Yet N/A
school children in UK and India traditional screening no screening Proportion of children with treated/untreated caries No Evidence Yet N/A
school children in USA CSM referral letter standard referral letter Dental attendance No Evidence Yet N/A
school children in USA CSM referral letter standard referral letter Proportion of children with other treated/untreated oral health need No Evidence Yet N/A
school children in USA CSM referral letter standard referral letter Adverse events No Evidence Yet N/A
school children in India traditional screening with motivation traditional screening Dental attendance Very Low Not specified
school children in Saudi Arabia referral to specific treatment facility advice letter to see a dentist Dental attendance Very Low Not specified
school children in UK criteria-based screening traditional screening Dental attendance Very Low Not specified
school children in UK criteria-based screening with specific referral criteria-based screening with non-specific referral Dental attendance at orthodontist Very Low Not specified
school children in UK criteria-based screening with specific referral criteria-based screening with non-specific referral Dental attendance at general dentist Very Low Not specified
school children in UK and India traditional screening no screening Dental attendance Very Low Not specified
school children in USA CSM referral letter standard referral letter Proportion of children with treated/untreated caries Very Low Not specified
Previous Versions
CD012595.PUB3
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Studies
school children criteria-based screening no screening Dental attendance Low -
school children criteria-based screening with specific referral criteria-based screening with non-specific referral Dental attendance at orthodontist Low -
school children criteria-based screening with specific referral criteria-based screening with non-specific referral Dental attendance at general dentist Low -
school children traditional screening with motivation traditional screening Dental attendance Low -
school children criteria-based screening traditional screening Dental attendance Very Low -
school children referral letter based on common-sense model standard referral letter Dental care received Very Low -
school children referral letter based on common-sense model plus dental information guide standard referral letter Dental care received Very Low -
school children referral letter based on common-sense model plus dental information guide referral letter based on common-sense model Dental care received Very Low -
school children traditional screening no screening Dental attendance Very Low -
CD012595.PUB2
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Studies
school children criteria-based screening no screening Dental attendance Low -
school children criteria-based screening with specific referral criteria-based screening with non-specific referral Dental attendance at orthodontist Low -
school children criteria-based screening with specific referral criteria-based screening with non-specific referral Dental attendance at general dentist Low -
school children traditional screening with motivation traditional screening Dental attendance Low -
increasing dental attendance traditional screening no screening Dental attendance Very Low -
school children criteria-based screening traditional screening Dental attendance Very Low -
CD012628
Current Version: CD012628.PUB2
Current Evidence Gaps 79 gaps
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Downgrade Reason
Adults (mean age 30.9 years) (level of ID unclear) Scheduled dental visits (oral hygiene instruction, with or without scale and polish), with supervised daily toothbrushing by carers Usual care ("no specific treatment") Gingival pocketing long term (> 12 months) Low Not specified
Adults (mean age 30.9 years) (level of ID unclear) Scheduled dental visits (oral hygiene instruction, with or without scale and polish), with supervised daily toothbrushing by carers Usual care ("no specific treatment") Plaque long term (> 12 months) Low Not specified
Adults (mean age 30.9 years) (level of ID unclear) Scheduled dental visits (oral hygiene instruction, with or without scale and polish), with supervised daily toothbrushing by carers Usual care ("no specific treatment") Gingival bleeding long term (> 12 months) Low Not specified
Children and adults with mixed levels of ID Electric toothbrush (self, carer or carer-assisted brushing) Manual toothbrush (self, carer or carer-assisted brushing) Plaque medium term (6 weeks to 12 months) Low Not specified
Children and adults with mixed levels of ID Electric toothbrush (self, carer or carer-assisted brushing) Manual toothbrush (self, carer or carer-assisted brushing) Gingival inflammation short term (< 6 weeks) Low Not specified
Children and adults with mixed levels of ID Special manual toothbrush (self, carer or carer-assisted brushing) Conventional manual toothbrush (self, carer or carer-assisted brushing) Gingival inflammation short term (< 6 weeks) Low Not specified
People aged 15 to 30 years with mixed levels of ID Daily toothbrushing by dental student Twice-weekly or once-weekly toothbrushing by dental student Plaque short term (< 6 weeks) Low Not specified
People with mixed levels of ID (age range unclear) Training of carers No training of carers Knowledge medium term (6 weeks to 12 months) Low Not specified
People with mixed levels of ID (age range unclear) Training of carers No training of carers Plaque medium term (6 weeks to 12 months) Low Not specified
People with mixed levels of ID (age range unclear) Training of carers No training of carers Gingival inflammation medium term (6 weeks to 12 months) Low Not specified
Children and adults with mixed levels of ID Electric toothbrush (self, carer or carer-assisted brushing) Manual toothbrush (self, carer or carer-assisted brushing) Gingival inflammation medium term (6 weeks to 12 months) Moderate Not specified
Adults (mean age 30.9 years) (level of ID unclear) Scheduled dental visits (oral hygiene instruction, with or without scale and polish), with supervised daily toothbrushing by carers Usual care ("no specific treatment") Dental caries No Evidence Yet N/A
Adults (mean age 30.9 years) (level of ID unclear) Scheduled dental visits (oral hygiene instruction, with or without scale and polish), with supervised daily toothbrushing by carers Usual care ("no specific treatment") Quality of life No Evidence Yet N/A
Adults (mean age 30.9 years) (level of ID unclear) Scheduled dental visits (oral hygiene instruction, with or without scale and polish), with supervised daily toothbrushing by carers Usual care ("no specific treatment") Plaque short term (< 6 weeks) No Evidence Yet N/A
Adults (mean age 30.9 years) (level of ID unclear) Scheduled dental visits (oral hygiene instruction, with or without scale and polish), with supervised daily toothbrushing by carers Usual care ("no specific treatment") Gingival inflammation short term (< 6 weeks) No Evidence Yet N/A
Adults (mean age 30.9 years) (level of ID unclear) Scheduled dental visits (oral hygiene instruction, with or without scale and polish), with supervised daily toothbrushing by carers Usual care ("no specific treatment") Adverse effects No Evidence Yet N/A
Children and adults with mild to profound ID Oral hygiene training (toothbrushing routine) No oral hygiene training Quality of life No Evidence Yet N/A
Children and adults with mild to profound ID Oral hygiene training (toothbrushing routine) No oral hygiene training Plaque medium term (6 weeks to 12 months) No Evidence Yet N/A
Children and adults with mild to profound ID Oral hygiene training (toothbrushing routine) No oral hygiene training Gingival inflammation medium term (6 weeks to 12 months) No Evidence Yet N/A
Children and adults with mild to profound ID Oral hygiene training (toothbrushing routine) No oral hygiene training Dental caries No Evidence Yet N/A
Children and adults with mild to profound ID Oral hygiene training (toothbrushing routine) No oral hygiene training Adverse effects No Evidence Yet N/A
Children and adults with mixed levels of ID Electric toothbrush (self, carer or carer-assisted brushing) Manual toothbrush (self, carer or carer-assisted brushing) Quality of life No Evidence Yet N/A
Children and adults with mixed levels of ID Electric toothbrush (self, carer or carer-assisted brushing) Manual toothbrush (self, carer or carer-assisted brushing) Adverse effects No Evidence Yet N/A
Children and adults with mixed levels of ID Electric toothbrush (self, carer or carer-assisted brushing) Manual toothbrush (self, carer or carer-assisted brushing) Dental caries No Evidence Yet N/A
Children and adults with mixed levels of ID Special manual toothbrush (self, carer or carer-assisted brushing) Conventional manual toothbrush (self, carer or carer-assisted brushing) Quality of life No Evidence Yet N/A
Children and adults with mixed levels of ID Special manual toothbrush (self, carer or carer-assisted brushing) Conventional manual toothbrush (self, carer or carer-assisted brushing) Dental caries No Evidence Yet N/A
Children and adults with mixed levels of ID Special manual toothbrush (self, carer or carer-assisted brushing) Conventional manual toothbrush (self, carer or carer-assisted brushing) Adverse effects No Evidence Yet N/A
nan nan nan nan No Evidence Yet N/A
nan nan nan nan No Evidence Yet N/A
nan nan nan nan No Evidence Yet N/A
nan nan nan nan No Evidence Yet N/A
nan nan nan nan No Evidence Yet N/A
nan nan nan nan No Evidence Yet N/A
nan nan nan nan No Evidence Yet N/A
nan nan nan nan No Evidence Yet N/A
nan nan nan nan No Evidence Yet N/A
nan nan nan nan No Evidence Yet N/A
nan nan nan nan No Evidence Yet N/A
nan nan nan nan No Evidence Yet N/A
nan nan nan nan No Evidence Yet N/A
People aged 15 to 30 years with mixed levels of ID Daily toothbrushing by dental student Twice-weekly or once-weekly toothbrushing by dental student Gingival inflammation short term (< 6 weeks) No Evidence Yet N/A
People aged 15 to 30 years with mixed levels of ID Daily toothbrushing by dental student Twice-weekly or once-weekly toothbrushing by dental student Dental caries No Evidence Yet N/A
People aged 15 to 30 years with mixed levels of ID Daily toothbrushing by dental student Twice-weekly or once-weekly toothbrushing by dental student Adverse effects No Evidence Yet N/A
People aged 15 to 30 years with mixed levels of ID Daily toothbrushing by dental student Twice-weekly or once-weekly toothbrushing by dental student Quality of life No Evidence Yet N/A
People aged 15 to 30 years with mixed levels of ID Daily toothbrushing by dental student Twice-weekly or once-weekly toothbrushing by dental student Plaque medium term (6 weeks to 12 months) No Evidence Yet N/A
People aged 15 to 30 years with mixed levels of ID Daily toothbrushing by dental student Twice-weekly or once-weekly toothbrushing by dental student Gingival inflammation medium term (6 weeks to 12 months) No Evidence Yet N/A
People aged 15 to 30 years with mixed levels of ID individualised care plans based on a multidisciplinary assessment usual care ‐ continued regular oral hygiene care, which was supported by a carer following institution's standard guidelines Quality of life No Evidence Yet N/A
People aged 15 to 30 years with mixed levels of ID individualised care plans based on a multidisciplinary assessment usual care ‐ continued regular oral hygiene care, which was supported by a carer following institution's standard guidelines Adverse effects No Evidence Yet N/A
People aged 15 to 30 years with mixed levels of ID individualised care plans based on a multidisciplinary assessment usual care ‐ continued regular oral hygiene care, which was supported by a carer following institution's standard guidelines Gingival inflammation short term (< 6 weeks) No Evidence Yet N/A
People aged 15 to 30 years with mixed levels of ID individualised care plans based on a multidisciplinary assessment usual care ‐ continued regular oral hygiene care, which was supported by a carer following institution's standard guidelines Gingival inflammation medium term (6 weeks to 12 months) No Evidence Yet N/A
People aged 15 to 30 years with mixed levels of ID individualised care plans based on a multidisciplinary assessment usual care ‐ continued regular oral hygiene care, which was supported by a carer following institution's standard guidelines Plaque short term (< 6 weeks) No Evidence Yet N/A
People aged 15 to 30 years with mixed levels of ID individualised care plans based on a multidisciplinary assessment usual care ‐ continued regular oral hygiene care, which was supported by a carer following institution's standard guidelines Dental caries No Evidence Yet N/A
People aged 15 to 30 years with mixed levels of ID toothpaste with a plaque‐disclosing agent conventional toothpaste Plaque medium term (6 weeks to 12 months) No Evidence Yet N/A
People aged 15 to 30 years with mixed levels of ID toothpaste with a plaque‐disclosing agent conventional toothpaste Quality of life No Evidence Yet N/A
People aged 15 to 30 years with mixed levels of ID toothpaste with a plaque‐disclosing agent conventional toothpaste Gingival inflammation medium term (6 weeks to 12 months) No Evidence Yet N/A
People aged 15 to 30 years with mixed levels of ID toothpaste with a plaque‐disclosing agent conventional toothpaste Dental caries No Evidence Yet N/A
People aged 15 to 30 years with mixed levels of ID toothpaste with a plaque‐disclosing agent conventional toothpaste Adverse effects No Evidence Yet N/A
People with ID (level of ID and age unclear) Discussion of clinical photographs as OH motivators and OH instruction at monthly intervals No discussion of clinical photographs, but did receive OH instruction at monthly intervals Quality of life No Evidence Yet N/A
People with ID (level of ID and age unclear) Discussion of clinical photographs as OH motivators and OH instruction at monthly intervals No discussion of clinical photographs, but did receive OH instruction at monthly intervals Gingival inflammation short term (< 6 weeks) No Evidence Yet N/A
People with ID (level of ID and age unclear) Discussion of clinical photographs as OH motivators and OH instruction at monthly intervals No discussion of clinical photographs, but did receive OH instruction at monthly intervals Gingival inflammation medium term (6 weeks to 12 months) No Evidence Yet N/A
People with ID (level of ID and age unclear) Discussion of clinical photographs as OH motivators and OH instruction at monthly intervals No discussion of clinical photographs, but did receive OH instruction at monthly intervals Plaque short term (< 6 weeks) No Evidence Yet N/A
People with ID (level of ID and age unclear) Discussion of clinical photographs as OH motivators and OH instruction at monthly intervals No discussion of clinical photographs, but did receive OH instruction at monthly intervals Dental caries No Evidence Yet N/A
People with ID (level of ID and age unclear) Discussion of clinical photographs as OH motivators and OH instruction at monthly intervals No discussion of clinical photographs, but did receive OH instruction at monthly intervals Adverse effects No Evidence Yet N/A
People with mixed levels of ID (age range unclear) Training of carers No training of carers Gingival inflammation short term (< 6 weeks) No Evidence Yet N/A
People with mixed levels of ID (age range unclear) Training of carers No training of carers Quality of life No Evidence Yet N/A
People with mixed levels of ID (age range unclear) Training of carers No training of carers Dental caries No Evidence Yet N/A
People with mixed levels of ID (age range unclear) Training of carers No training of carers Adverse effects No Evidence Yet N/A
People with mixed levels of ID (age range unclear) Training of carers No training of carers Plaque short term (< 6 weeks) No Evidence Yet N/A
Children and adults with mild to profound ID Oral hygiene training (toothbrushing routine) No oral hygiene training Behaviour, attitude and self-efficacy medium and long term (6 weeks to > 12 months) Very Low Not specified
Children and adults with mild to profound ID Oral hygiene training (toothbrushing routine) No oral hygiene training Plaque short term (< 6 weeks) Very Low Not specified
Children and adults with mild to profound ID Oral hygiene training (toothbrushing routine) No oral hygiene training Gingival inflammation short term (< 6 weeks) Very Low Not specified
Children and adults with mixed levels of ID Electric toothbrush (self, carer or carer-assisted brushing) Manual toothbrush (self, carer or carer-assisted brushing) Plaque short term (< 6 weeks) Very Low Not specified
Children and adults with mixed levels of ID Special manual toothbrush (self, carer or carer-assisted brushing) Conventional manual toothbrush (self, carer or carer-assisted brushing) Plaque short term Very Low Not specified
Children and adults with mixed levels of ID Special manual toothbrush (self, carer or carer-assisted brushing) Conventional manual toothbrush (self, carer or carer-assisted brushing) Gingival inflammation medium term (6 weeks to 12 months) Very Low Not specified
Children and adults with mixed levels of ID Special manual toothbrush (self, carer or carer-assisted brushing) Conventional manual toothbrush (self, carer or carer-assisted brushing) Plaque medium term (6 weeks to 12 months) Very Low Not specified
People aged 15 to 30 years with mixed levels of ID individualised care plans based on a multidisciplinary assessment usual care ‐ continued regular oral hygiene care, which was supported by a carer following institution's standard guidelines Plaque medium term (6 weeks to 12 months) Very Low Not specified
People aged 15 to 30 years with mixed levels of ID toothpaste with a plaque‐disclosing agent conventional toothpaste Gingival inflammation short term (< 6 weeks) Very Low Not specified
People aged 15 to 30 years with mixed levels of ID toothpaste with a plaque‐disclosing agent conventional toothpaste Plaque short term (< 6 weeks) Very Low Not specified
People with ID (level of ID and age unclear) Discussion of clinical photographs as OH motivators and OH instruction at monthly intervals No discussion of clinical photographs, but did receive OH instruction at monthly intervals Plaque medium term (6 weeks to 12 months) Very Low Not specified
People with mixed levels of ID (age range unclear) Training of carers No training of carers Behaviour, attitude and self-efficacy (BAS) medium term (6 weeks to 12 months) Very Low Not specified
CD012851
Current Version: CD012851.PUB2
Current Evidence Gaps 4 gaps
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Downgrade Reason
young people aged 9–14 years double primary tooth (canine and molar) extractions single primary tooth (canine) extraction Referred for surgical exposure of the unerupted PDC by maximum 48 months Very Low Not specified
young people aged 9–14 years double primary tooth (canine and molar) extractions single primary tooth (canine) extraction Eruption of PDC at mean 18 months Very Low Not specified
young people aged 9–14 years single primary tooth (canine) extraction no extraction Referral for surgical exposure of PDC at 12 months Very Low Not specified
young people aged 9–14 years single primary tooth (canine) extraction no extraction Eruption of PDC at 12 months Very Low Not specified
CD012981
Current Version: CD012981.PUB2
Current Evidence Gaps 23 gaps
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Downgrade Reason
children who were regular dental attenders with caries‐free first or second primary molars flowable resin composite resin‐based sealants Sealant retention, 12 months Low Not specified
children with caries‐free (or non‐cavitated carious lesion) primary molars, aged 3–7 years fluoride‐releasing resin‐based sealant no treatment Development of ≥ 1 new carious lesion (caries incidence), 12 months Low Not specified
children with caries‐free (or non‐cavitated carious lesion) primary molars, aged 3–7 years fluoride‐releasing resin‐based sealant no treatment Development of ≥ 1 new carious lesion (caries incidence), 24 months Low Not specified
children with caries‐free primary first molars with or without caries affecting other teeth, aged 1–5 years glass ionomer‐based sealants no sealants Development of at ≥ 1 new carious lesion (caries incidence), 12-30 months Low Not specified
children with caries?free second primary molars, aged 4–8 years fluoride?releasing resin?based sealants resin?based sealants Development of ? 1 new carious lesion (caries incidence) Low Not specified
children who were regular dental attenders with caries‐free first or second primary molars flowable resin composite resin‐based sealants Development of ≥ 1 new carious lesion (caries incidence) No Evidence Yet N/A
children who were regular dental attenders with caries‐free first or second primary molars flowable resin composite resin‐based sealants Progression of non‐cavitated enamel caries No Evidence Yet N/A
children who were regular dental attenders with caries‐free first or second primary molars flowable resin composite resin‐based sealants Adverse events No Evidence Yet N/A
children with caries‐free (or non‐cavitated carious lesion) primary molars, aged 3–7 years fluoride‐releasing resin‐based sealant no treatment Progression of non‐cavitated enamel caries No Evidence Yet N/A
children with caries‐free (or non‐cavitated carious lesion) primary molars, aged 3–7 years fluoride‐releasing resin‐based sealant no treatment Adverse events No Evidence Yet N/A
children with caries‐free primary first molars with or without caries affecting other teeth, aged 1–5 years glass ionomer‐based sealants no sealants Progression of non‐cavitated enamel caries No Evidence Yet N/A
children with caries‐free primary first molars with or without caries affecting other teeth, aged 1–5 years glass ionomer‐based sealants no sealants Adverse events No Evidence Yet N/A
children with caries?free second primary molars, aged 4–8 years fluoride?releasing resin?based sealants resin?based sealants Progression of non?cavitated enamel caries No Evidence Yet N/A
children with caries?free second primary molars, aged 4–8 years fluoride?releasing resin?based sealants resin?based sealants Adverse events No Evidence Yet N/A
children with sound primary molars, aged 2–4 years autopolymerised sealant application light polymerised sealant application Progression of non‐cavitated enamel caries No Evidence Yet N/A
children with sound primary molars, aged 2–4 years autopolymerised sealant application light polymerised sealant application Adverse events No Evidence Yet N/A
'healthy' children, with caries‐free second primary molars, aged 3–5 years glass ionomer‐based sealants fluoride‐releasing or non‐fluoride‐releasing resin‐based sealants Progression of non‐cavitated enamel caries No Evidence Yet N/A
children with caries?free second primary molars, aged 4–8 years fluoride?releasing resin?based sealants resin?based sealants Sealant retention Very Low Not specified
children with sound primary molars, aged 2–4 years autopolymerised sealant application light polymerised sealant application Sealant retention, 24–36 months Very Low Not specified
children with sound primary molars, aged 2–4 years autopolymerised sealant application light polymerised sealant application Development of ≥ 1 new carious lesion (caries incidence), 24–36 months Very Low Not specified
'healthy' children, with caries‐free second primary molars, aged 3–5 years glass ionomer‐based sealants fluoride‐releasing or non‐fluoride‐releasing resin‐based sealants Adverse events Very Low Not specified
'healthy' children, with caries‐free second primary molars, aged 3–5 years glass ionomer‐based sealants fluoride‐releasing or non‐fluoride‐releasing resin‐based sealants Development of ≥ 1 new carious lesion (caries incidence), 6–24 months Very Low Not specified
'healthy' children, with caries‐free second primary molars, aged 3–5 years glass ionomer‐based sealants fluoride‐releasing or non‐fluoride‐releasing resin‐based sealants Sealant retention, 24 months Very Low Not specified
CD013039
Current Version: CD013039.PUB2
Current Evidence Gaps 13 gaps
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Downgrade Reason
treating cavitated or dentine carious lesions, primary dentition nonâselective carious tissue removal and CR HT Failure of therapy Low Not specified
treating cavitated or dentine carious lesions, primary and permanent dentition nonâselective carious tissue removal and CR SW Failure of therapy: CR vs SW â permanent, deep Moderate Not specified
treating cavitated or dentine carious lesions, primary and permanent dentition SE SW Failure of therapy: SW vs SE â permanent, deep Moderate Not specified
treating cavitated or dentine carious lesions nonâselective carious tissue removal and CR SE Failure of therapy: CR vs SE â primary, deep Very Low Not specified
treating cavitated or dentine carious lesions nonâselective carious tissue removal and CR SE Failure of therapy: CR vs SE â permanent, deep Very Low Not specified
treating cavitated or dentine carious lesions nonâselective carious tissue removal and CR SE Failure of therapy: CR vs SE â primary, cavitated but not deep Very Low Not specified
treating cavitated or dentine carious lesions, permanent dentition sealing no treatment Failure of therapy Very Low Not specified
treating cavitated or dentine carious lesions, permanent or primary dentition sealing using sealant materials nonâselective carious tissue removal and CR Failure of therapy Very Low Not specified
treating cavitated or dentine carious lesions, primary and permanent dentition nonâselective carious tissue removal and CR SW Failure of therapy: CR vs SW â primary, deep Very Low Not specified
treating cavitated or dentine carious lesions, primary and permanent dentition SE SW Failure of therapy: SW vs SE â primary, deep Very Low Not specified
treating cavitated or dentine carious lesions, primary dentition HT NRCC Failure of therapy Very Low Not specified
treating cavitated or dentine carious lesions, primary dentition nonâselective carious tissue removal and CR NRCC Failure of therapy Very Low Not specified
treating cavitated or dentine carious lesions, primary dentition SE HT Failure of therapy: SE vs HT â primary, deep Very Low Not specified
treating cavitated or dentine carious lesions, primary dentition SE HT Failure of therapy: SE vs HT â primary, cavitated but not deep Very Low Not specified
treating cavitated or dentine carious lesions, primary dentition sealing with sealant materials SE Failure of therapy Very Low Not specified
CD013515
Current Version: CD013515.PUB2
Current Evidence Gaps 14 gaps
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Downgrade Reason
People with painful TMD CBT Usual care, waiting list or no treatment Pain intensity at treatment completion Low Not specified
People with painful TMD CBT Alternative treatment Pain intensity at treatment completion Low Not specified
People with painful TMD CBT Alternative treatment Pain intensity at follow-up (6-12 months) Low Not specified
People with painful TMD CBT Alternative treatment Disability caused by pain at treatment completion Low Not specified
People with painful TMD CBT Alternative treatment Disability caused by pain at follow-up Low Not specified
People with painful TMD CBT Alternative treatment Psychological distress at treatment completion Low Not specified
People with painful TMD CBT Alternative treatment Psychological distress at follow-up Low Not specified
People with painful TMD CBT Usual care, waiting list or no treatment Pain intensity at follow-up (12 months) Low Not specified
People with painful TMD CBT Usual care, waiting list or no treatment Pain disability at treatment completion Low Not specified
People with painful TMD CBT Usual care, waiting list or no treatment Pain disability at follow-up Low Not specified
People with painful TMD CBT Usual care, waiting list or no treatment Psychological distress at treatment completion Low Not specified
People with painful TMD CBT Usual care, waiting list or no treatment Psychological distress at follow-up Low Not specified
People with painful TMD CBT Alternative treatment Adverse events Very Low Not specified
People with painful TMD CBT Usual care, waiting list or no treatment Adverse events Very Low Not specified
CD013686
Current Version: CD013686.PUB2
Current Evidence Gaps 18 gaps
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Downgrade Reason
people undergoing aerosol generating procedures high-volume evacuation (HVE) no HVE Rate of infection of dental staff or patients No Evidence Yet N/A
people undergoing aerosol generating procedures high-volume evacuation (HVE) no HVE Reduction in volume of contaminated aerosols in the operative environment No Evidence Yet N/A
people undergoing aerosol generating procedures HVE conventional dental suction Rate of infection of dental staff or patients No Evidence Yet N/A
people undergoing aerosol generating procedures HVE conventional dental suction Reduction in volume of contaminated aerosols in the operative environment No Evidence Yet N/A
people undergoing aerosol generating procedures rubber dam no rubber dam Reduction in volume of contaminated aerosols in the operative environment No Evidence Yet N/A
people undergoing aerosol generating procedures rubber dam no rubber dam Rate of infection of dental staff or patients No Evidence Yet N/A
people undergoing aerosol generating procedures rubber dam + HVE no rubber dam + HVE Rate of infection of dental staff or patients No Evidence Yet N/A
people undergoing aerosol generating procedures rubber dam + HVE no rubber dam + HVE Reduction in volume of contaminated aerosols in the operative environment No Evidence Yet N/A
people undergoing aerosol generating procedures high-volume evacuation (HVE) no HVE Reduction in level of contamination in aerosols (CFU/mm³) during ultrasonic scaling and air polishing at more than 1 foot from oral cavity Very Low Not specified
people undergoing aerosol generating procedures high-volume evacuation (HVE) no HVE Reduction in level of contamination in aerosols (CFU/mm³) during ultrasonic scaling and air polishing at less than 1 foot from oral cavity Very Low Not specified
people undergoing aerosol generating procedures HVE conventional dental suction Reduction in level of contamination in aerosols during ultrasonic scaling at 40 cm Very Low Not specified
people undergoing aerosol generating procedures HVE conventional dental suction Reduction in level of contamination in aerosols during ultrasonic scaling at 150 cm Very Low Not specified
people undergoing aerosol generating procedures rubber dam no rubber dam Reduction in the level of contamination in aerosols during restorative procedures at 2 meters from mouth Very Low Not specified
people undergoing aerosol generating procedures rubber dam no rubber dam Reduction in the level of contamination in aerosols during restorative procedures at forehead Very Low Not specified
people undergoing aerosol generating procedures rubber dam no rubber dam Reduction in level of contamination in aerosols during restorative procedures at 1 meter from mouth Very Low Not specified
people undergoing aerosol generating procedures rubber dam no rubber dam Reduction in the level of contamination in aerosols during restorative procedures at occiput Very Low Not specified
people undergoing aerosol generating procedures rubber dam + HVE no rubber dam + HVE Reduction in level of contamination in aerosols during restorative procedures at dental unit light Very Low Not specified
people undergoing aerosol generating procedures rubber dam + HVE no rubber dam + HVE Reduction in level of contamination in aerosols during restorative procedures at participant's chest Very Low Not specified
CD013826
Current Version: CD013826.PUB2
Current Evidence Gaps 57 gaps
Population Intervention Comparison Outcome Evidence Level Downgrade Reason
dental patients undergoing aerosol‐generating procedures and dental care professionals treating them CHX essential oils/herbal mouthwash Reduction in level of contamination by particles > 5 µm (droplets) at distances of < 2 m from patient's oral cavity in the operative environment – assistant level Low Not specified
dental patients undergoing aerosol‐generating procedures and dental care professionals treating them CHX essential oils/herbal mouthwash Reduction in level of contamination by particles > 5 µm (droplets) at distances of < 2 m from patient's oral cavity in the operative environment – operator level Low Not specified
dental patients undergoing aerosol‐generating procedures and dental healthcare professionals treating them CHX water Reduction in the level of contamination by particles > 5 µm (droplets) at distances of < 2 m from patient's oral cavity in the operative environment – combined operator, assistant and patient level Low Not specified
dental patients undergoing aerosol‐generating procedures and dental care professionals treating them CHX saline Incidence of infection of dental healthcare providers No Evidence Yet N/A
dental patients undergoing aerosol‐generating procedures and dental care professionals treating them CHX saline Adverse events such as transient discolouration, altered taste, allergic reaction, hypersensitivity No Evidence Yet N/A
dental patients undergoing aerosol‐generating procedures and dental care professionals treating them CHX saline Reduction in the level of contamination by particles ?5 µm (droplet nuclei) at distances of ? 2 m from patient's oral cavity in the operative environment No Evidence Yet N/A
dental patients undergoing aerosol‐generating procedures and dental care professionals treating them CHX CPC Adverse events such as transient discolouration, altered taste, allergic reaction, hypersensitivity No Evidence Yet N/A
dental patients undergoing aerosol‐generating procedures and dental care professionals treating them CHX CPC Reduction in level of contamination by particles ? 5 µm (droplet nuclei) at distances of ? 2 m from patient's oral cavity in the operative environment No Evidence Yet N/A
dental patients undergoing aerosol‐generating procedures and dental care professionals treating them CHX CPC Incidence of infection of dental healthcare providers No Evidence Yet N/A
dental patients undergoing aerosol‐generating procedures and dental care professionals treating them CHX povidone iodine Adverse events such as transient discolouration, altered taste, allergic reaction, hypersensitivity No Evidence Yet N/A
dental patients undergoing aerosol‐generating procedures and dental care professionals treating them CHX povidone iodine Incidence of infection of dental healthcare providers No Evidence Yet N/A
dental patients undergoing aerosol‐generating procedures and dental care professionals treating them CHX essential oils/herbal mouthwash Adverse events such as transient discolouration, altered taste, allergic reaction, hypersensitivity No Evidence Yet N/A
dental patients undergoing aerosol‐generating procedures and dental care professionals treating them CHX essential oils/herbal mouthwash Reduction in level of contamination by particles ? 5 µm (droplet nuclei) at distances of ? 2 m from patient's oral cavity in the operative environment No Evidence Yet N/A
dental patients undergoing aerosol‐generating procedures and dental care professionals treating them CHX essential oils/herbal mouthwash Incidence of infection of dental healthcare providers No Evidence Yet N/A
dental patients undergoing aerosol‐generating procedures and dental care professionals treating them tempered CHX non‐tempered CHX Adverse events such as transient discolouration, altered taste, allergic reaction, hypersensitivity No Evidence Yet N/A
dental patients undergoing aerosol‐generating procedures and dental care professionals treating them tempered CHX non‐tempered CHX Incidence of infection of dental healthcare providers No Evidence Yet N/A
dental patients undergoing aerosol‐generating procedures and dental care professionals treating them tempered CHX non‐tempered CHX Reduction in the level of contamination by particles ?5 µm (droplet nuclei) at distances of ? 2 m from patient's oral cavity in the operative environment No Evidence Yet N/A
dental patients undergoing aerosol‐generating procedures and dental healthcare professionals treating them CHX no rinsing Reduction in level of contamination by particles > 5 µm (droplets) at distances of < 2 m from patient's oral cavity in the operative environment –operator level No Evidence Yet N/A
dental patients undergoing aerosol‐generating procedures and dental healthcare professionals treating them CHX no rinsing Incidence of infection of dental healthcare providers No Evidence Yet N/A
dental patients undergoing aerosol‐generating procedures and dental healthcare professionals treating them CHX no rinsing Adverse events such as transient discolouration, altered taste, allergic reaction, hypersensitivity No Evidence Yet N/A
dental patients undergoing aerosol‐generating procedures and dental healthcare professionals treating them CHX water Incidence of infection of dental healthcare providers No Evidence Yet N/A
dental patients undergoing aerosol‐generating procedures and dental healthcare professionals treating them CHX water Reduction in level of contamination by particles ?5 µm (droplet nuclei) at distances of ? 2 m from patient's oral cavity in the operative environment No Evidence Yet N/A
dental patients undergoing aerosol‐generating procedures and dental healthcare professionals treating them CHX water Adverse events such as transient discolouration, altered taste, allergic reaction, hypersensitivity No Evidence Yet N/A
dental patients undergoing aerosol‐generating procedures and dental healthcare professionals treating them CHX no rinsing Reduction in level of contamination by particles ?5 µm (droplet nuclei) at distances of ? 2 m from patient's oral cavity in the operative environment No Evidence Yet N/A
nan nan nan nan No Evidence Yet N/A
nan nan nan nan No Evidence Yet N/A
nan nan nan nan No Evidence Yet N/A
nan nan nan nan No Evidence Yet N/A
nan nan nan nan No Evidence Yet N/A
nan nan nan nan No Evidence Yet N/A
nan nan nan nan No Evidence Yet N/A
nan nan nan nan No Evidence Yet N/A
nan nan nan nan No Evidence Yet N/A
nan nan nan nan No Evidence Yet N/A
nan nan nan nan No Evidence Yet N/A
nan nan nan nan No Evidence Yet N/A
nan nan nan nan No Evidence Yet N/A
nan nan nan nan No Evidence Yet N/A
nan nan nan nan No Evidence Yet N/A
dental patients undergoing aerosol‐generating procedures and dental care professionals treating them CHX saline Reduction in level of contamination by particles > 5 µm (droplets) at distances of < 2 m from patient's oral cavity in the operative environment – operator level Very Low Not specified
dental patients undergoing aerosol‐generating procedures and dental care professionals treating them CHX povidone iodine Reduction in level of contamination by particles > 5 µm (droplets) at distances of < 2 m from patient's oral cavity in the operative environment – operator level (aerobic cultures) Very Low Not specified
dental patients undergoing aerosol‐generating procedures and dental care professionals treating them CHX povidone iodine Reduction in level of contamination by particles > 5 µm (droplets) at distances of < 2 m from patient's oral cavity in the operative environment – operator level (aerobic and anaerobic cultures combined) Very Low Not specified
dental patients undergoing aerosol‐generating procedures and dental care professionals treating them CHX povidone iodine Reduction in level of contamination by particles ≤ 5 µm (droplet nuclei) at distances of ≥ 2 m from patient's oral cavity in the operative environment – aerobic cultures Very Low Not specified
dental patients undergoing aerosol‐generating procedures and dental care professionals treating them CHX povidone iodine Reduction in level of contamination by particles ≤ 5 µm (droplet nuclei) at distances of ≥ 2 m from patient's oral cavity in the operative environment – anaerobic cultures Very Low Not specified
dental patients undergoing aerosol‐generating procedures and dental care professionals treating them CHX CPC Reduction in level of contamination by particles > 5 µm (droplets) at distances of < 2 m from patient's oral cavity in the operative environment – operator Very Low Not specified
dental patients undergoing aerosol‐generating procedures and dental care professionals treating them CHX CPC Reduction in level of contamination by particles > 5 µm (droplets) at distances of < 2 m from patient's oral cavity in the operative environment – assistant Very Low Not specified
dental patients undergoing aerosol‐generating procedures and dental care professionals treating them CHX CPC Reduction in level of contamination by particles > 5 µm (droplets) at distances of < 2 m from patient's oral cavity in the operative environment – operator Very Low Not specified
dental patients undergoing aerosol‐generating procedures and dental care professionals treating them CHX CPC Reduction in level of contamination by particles > 5 µm (droplets) at distances of < 2 m from patient's oral cavity in the operative environment – assistant Very Low Not specified
dental patients undergoing aerosol‐generating procedures and dental care professionals treating them CHX CPC Reduction in level of contamination by particles > 5 µm (droplets) at distances of < 2 m from patient's oral cavity in the operative environment – operator Very Low Not specified
dental patients undergoing aerosol‐generating procedures and dental care professionals treating them CHX CPC Reduction in level of contamination by particles > 5 µm (droplets) at distances of < 2 m from patient's oral cavity in the operative environment – assistant Very Low Not specified
dental patients undergoing aerosol‐generating procedures and dental care professionals treating them CHX CPC Reduction in level of contamination by particles > 5 µm (droplets) at distances of < 2 m from patient's oral cavity in the operative environment – operator Very Low Not specified
dental patients undergoing aerosol‐generating procedures and dental care professionals treating them CHX CPC Reduction in level of contamination by particles > 5 µm (droplets) at distances of < 2 m from patient's oral cavity in the operative environment – assistant Very Low Not specified
dental patients undergoing aerosol‐generating procedures and dental care professionals treating them CHX CPC Reduction in level of contamination by particles > 5 µm (droplets) at distances of < 2 m from patient's oral cavity in the operative environment – operator level Very Low Not specified
dental patients undergoing aerosol‐generating procedures and dental care professionals treating them tempered CHX non‐tempered CHX Reduction in level of contamination by particles > 5 µm (droplets) at distances of < 2 m from patient's oral cavity in the operative environment – combined Very Low Not specified
dental patients undergoing aerosol‐generating procedures and dental care professionals treating them tempered CHX non‐tempered CHX Reduction in level of contamination by particles > 5 µm (droplets) at distances of < 2 m from patient's oral cavity in the operative environment – operator level Very Low Not specified
dental patients undergoing aerosol‐generating procedures and dental care professionals treating them tempered CHX non‐tempered CHX Reduction in level of contamination by particles > 5 µm (droplets) at distances of < 2 m from patient's oral cavity in the operative environment – assistant level Very Low Not specified
dental patients undergoing aerosol‐generating procedures and dental healthcare professionals treating them CHX water Reduction in level of contamination by particles > 5 µm (droplets) at distances of < 2 m from patient's oral cavity in the operative environment – combined patient and operator level Very Low Not specified
Showing 201 to 214 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%)