Gap finder
Search review questions
Each row is one question a systematic review asked: who, what, compared with what, and which outcome, with the effect it found and how certain that is. Words match anywhere in the field.
7 questions in 5 reviews · intervention: Glass ionomer / ART · outcome domain: Adverse effects/fluorosis
current versionsNo studies 5 · 71.4%Ungraded 0 · 0%Very low 0 · 0%Low 1 · 14.3%Moderate 1 · 14.3%High 0 · 0%
Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.
Intervention categories, outcome domains and clusters are a proposed key pending human validation. Clear all filters
| Question | Effect | Evidence | Status / GRADE |
|---|---|---|---|
Ion-releasing restorations (IRR): RMGIC, HVGIC, GIC, compomer/PMRC, giomer vs Composite resin (CR), including bulk-fill composite Proper surface staining · Children receiving dental restorations (aged 4-11 years; primary teeth; Class I/II/V cavities) · 1.5 to 2 years Clinical effectiveness of ion-releasing restorations compared to composite restorations in pediatric dental… (2025) | RR 1.07 [0.87, 1.31] | 2 studies · 131 participants | Moderate |
Glass ionomer cement vs Amalgam Adverse events · Patients needing retrograde filling in root canal therapy (orthograde root canal filling or retreatment not possible;… Materials for retrograde filling in root canal therapy (2021) · Cochrane | Adverse events: outcome was not assessed by the included studies | 0 studies | No studies |
Resin-modified glass ionomer cement for bonding orthodontic brackets vs Light-cured composite resin for bonding brackets Adverse effects · Orthodontic patients of any age with fixed braces (new DLs assessed at debond) · At debond; follow-up 17.6 months Fluorides for preventing early tooth decay (demineralised lesions) during fixed brace treatment (2019) · Cochrane | SoF 5. Adverse effects: no evidence that either intervention had adverse effects. 173 participants (1 RCT, Benson 2019); certainty LOW. | 1 study · 173 participants | Low |
Dental cavity liner (e.g. calcium hydroxide, glass ionomer, resin-modified glass ionomer, or flowable composite) placed under the restoration vs No liner (resin-based composite bonded directly to the tooth) Adverse events · Adults or children with a Class I or Class II resin-based composite restoration in a permanent posterior tooth Dental cavity liners for Class I and Class II resin‐based composite restorations (2019) · Cochrane | None reported. No adverse events were reported in any of the included studies (0 studies contributed adverse-events data). | 0 studies | No studies |
ART using high-viscosity glass ionomer cement (H-GIC), hand instruments vs Conventional treatment using H-GIC (rotary instruments) Adverse events · People with dental caries in primary teeth (mainly children) Atraumatic restorative treatment versus conventional restorative treatment for managing dental caries (2017) · Cochrane | Adverse events: Not measured. | 0 studies | No studies |
ART using composite resin vs Conventional treatment using composite resin Adverse events · Children with dental caries in primary teeth (mean age 7 years) Atraumatic restorative treatment versus conventional restorative treatment for managing dental caries (2017) · Cochrane | Adverse events: Not measured. | 0 studies | No studies |
ART using resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RM-GIC) vs Conventional treatment using RM-GIC Adverse events · Older adults with root caries in permanent (mature) teeth (mean age 75 years) Atraumatic restorative treatment versus conventional restorative treatment for managing dental caries (2017) · Cochrane | Adverse events: Not measured. | 0 studies | No studies |