tl;dr Not reliably, no.
Every single database suffers from the exact same flaw (among others) when calculating winning percentage -- the bias introduced when lines are refuted. Players, especially today's players, will react far more quickly to a change in evaluation than the database results will. When the evaluation of a line changes, the lines players go into will change before the db accumulates enough data to make a big difference in the score.
Let's say there's a variation that has traditionally favored White. When you look at the winning percentages for it, you'll see a big White plus (let's say it's 50 wins, 80 draws, and 10 losses, for about 64%). Now a GM unveils a novelty 6 moves into it that completely reverses the evaluation. Word spreads, and let's say the next results show 1 win, 1 draw and 4 losses for White, at which point White decides to move on to greener pastures.
The line is bad for White, as those games revealed, which is why White stopped letting it happen. But there are more games in the db without the new idea than with it, so the winning percentage still shows an edge for White until you travel 6 more moves down the tree. That same position which before was 63%, now shows 62%, still a really good edge to White, yet its current state of results is more like 25% for White, very little short of disastrous.
You can try min/maxing from a deeper level to try and solve this, or you can limit chronologically the games you search, but both approaches while lessening that effect, will introduce biases of their own in the data.
Bottom line is never trust the win percentages from a db. They're useful as one indicator of the quality of a variation, but there are other considerations that can outweigh them.
There's no real utility in even searching for an "objective" best move, because you're human. You will play some positions better than others because you like them and understand them better than others. So you may conceivably get better results playing an objectively worse alternative. No one plays every position with the same skill; it's a goal top players strive for, but no one attains. Spassky lost the 1966 match with Petrosian in part because he tried to be that universal player, tried in some games to "out-Petrosian Petrosian." so to speak. He didn't try that approach in 1969, and instead concentrated more on what he did best, and won.