Background: Despite the different methods for setting priorities for health care, their relevance to high quality evidence of the effectiveness of healthcare interventions is not yet well established. Objectives: To compare priority action areas in oral health with the evidence available in The Cochrane Library. Methods: We examined two major sources of priorities on oral health; the oral health priority action area of the World Health Organization (WHO) (http://www.who.int/oral_health/action/en/) and the oral health priorities defined by ‘Healthy People 2010’. These were compared with the evidence provided in The Cochrane Library, Issue 4, 2007 in an attempt to identify gaps in the existing Cochrane reviews (CRs) as well as to clarify the issues that need to be considered in any priority setting exercise. Results: Two of the priority areas established in ‘Healthy People 2010’ - pit and fissure dental sealants for preventing dental caries in children and screening for oral cancer - are not supported by high quality evidence. Except for the topic of the prevention of dental caries, which included six CRs with sufficient evidence to reach a conclusion, the reviews on the treatment of dental caries and periodontal diseases generally provided limited evidence for the effectiveness of priority interventions. Both of the priority setting exercises focused on the need for oral health services and the need to increase the accessibility to and attendance of oral health services.We only found three reviews relevant to oral health services or the specific usage of those services. TheWHO also focuses on risks to oral health: diet, nutrition, fluorides, tobacco, HIV/AIDS. Although there are CRs addressing the other issues, there is no CR on nutrition and oral health and none on water fluoridation. Conclusions: Some of the known priority areas in oral health are not supported by high quality evidence. Health priorities can suggest areas where CRs and trials may be worthwhile. A closer collaboration between those tasked with setting priorities and the producers of evidence could provide a more integrated approach to the evaluation of appropriate priorities and the subsequent delivery of effective oral health care.