Summary of findings 4. Summary of findings ‐ Enhanced one‐to‐one OHA versus one‐to‐one OHA.

Enhanced 1‐to‐1 OHA versus 1‐to‐1 OHA in a dental setting for oral heath
Patient or population: children or adults Settings: dental surgery/office setting Intervention: enhanced 1‐to‐1 OHA in a dental setting Comparison: 1‐to‐1 OHA in a dental setting
Outcomes	Number of participants (studies)	Quality of the evidence (GRADE)	Comments
Periodontal health: gingivitis	782 participants (5 studies); follow‐up: 430 participants	⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low1	2 studies in adults did not report usable data 1 study in adults provided low‐quality evidence of a benefit in gingivitis reduction at 5.5 months for enhanced OHA 3 studies found little or no difference between groups across all time points
Periodontal health: plaque levels	802 participants (6 studies); follow‐up: 440 participants	⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low2	2 studies in adults did not report usable data 1 study in adults provided low‐quality evidence of a benefit in plaque reduction at 5.5 months for enhanced OHA 1 study in adults found little or no difference between groups at 3 months 1 study in adults found little or no difference between groups across all time points 1 study in adults provided weak evidence of a benefit in plaque reduction for 1 of the enhanced OHA at 2 months
Dental caries	121 participants (1 study); follow‐ up: 70 participants	⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low3	1 study in adults did not report usable data
GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High quality: further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect Moderate quality: further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate Low quality: further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate Very low quality: we are very uncertain about the estimate

¹1 study at high and 4 at unclear risk of bias. Unable to pool data. 2 of the included studies were in secondary care. Interventions of 4 trials (number of appointments and/or intensity) are not applicable in routine dental practice. Downgraded for risk of bias, inconsistency and indirectness.
 ²1 study at high and 5 at unclear risk of bias. Unable to pool data. 2 of the included studies were in secondary care. Interventions of 5 trials (number of appointments and/or intensity) are not applicable in routine dental practice. Downgraded for risk of bias, inconsistency and indirectness.
 ³1 high risk of bias study. Did not report usable data. Setting and intervention not applicable to routine dental care, therefore also downgraded for indirectness.