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 3 reviews · intervention: Operative/pulp treatment · outcome domain: Adverse effects/fluorosis
current versionsNo studies 0 · 0%Ungraded 3 · 42.9%Very low 3 · 42.9%Low 1 · 14.3%Moderate 0 · 0%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 |
|---|---|---|---|
Hall Technique preformed metal crowns vs Conventional restorations (amalgam, GIC, composite) Gingival bleeding (adverse event) · Children (3-10 years) with dentine caries in primary molars · Not reported Minimal intervention dentistry for managing carious lesions into dentine in primary teeth: an umbrella review. (2022) | RR 1.09 [0.42, 2.86] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Extra-oral pulp extirpation at day 0 vs Intra-oral pulp extirpation at day 7 Adverse effects · People with avulsed and replanted permanent (front) teeth Interventions for treating traumatised permanent front teeth: avulsed (knocked out) and replanted (2019) · Cochrane | Giannetti 2006 did not report this outcome; following email correspondence, authors reported no adverse effects were seen (uncertain whether formally assessed). | 1 study | Ungraded |
Preformed crown (any material; conventional technique or Hall Technique) vs Filling (any material; with or without complete carious tissue excavation; with or without pulp treatment) Adverse events: gingival bleeding · Children with decayed primary molar teeth · Short term (up to 12 months) Preformed crowns for decayed primary molar teeth (2015) · Cochrane | RR 1.69 [0.61, 4.66] | 2 studies · 226 participants | Ungraded |
Preformed metal crown (fitted using the Hall Technique) vs Non-restorative caries treatment Adverse events: gingival bleeding · Children with decayed primary molar teeth · Long term (12 months) Preformed crowns for decayed primary molar teeth (2015) · Cochrane | RR 1.09 [0.42, 2.86] | 1 study · 92 participants | Very low |
Preformed metal crown (stainless steel), conventional technique vs Aesthetic crown (stainless steel with composite/white veneer), conventional technique Adverse events: bone resorption · Children with decayed primary molar teeth · Six months and four years Preformed crowns for decayed primary molar teeth (2015) · Cochrane | Bone resorption: one case at six months in a tooth treated with a veneer crown; no bone resorption at either the veneer crown or stainless steel sites at four-year follow-up (Analysis 3.2). | 1 study · 11 participants | Very low |
Preformed metal crown (stainless steel), conventional technique vs Aesthetic crown (stainless steel with composite/white veneer), conventional technique Adverse events: gingival bleeding · Children with decayed primary molar teeth · Six months and four years Preformed crowns for decayed primary molar teeth (2015) · Cochrane | At six months, none (0/11) of the PMC sites had gingival bleeding, but all (11/11) veneer sites had bleeding, 10 of which bled on probing; statistically significant (McNemar's test, P < 0.001). At four years, one case… | 1 study · 11 participants | Very low |
Preformed crown (any material; conventional technique or Hall Technique) vs Filling (any material; with or without complete carious tissue excavation; with or without pulp treatment) Adverse events: gingival bleeding · Children with decayed primary molar teeth · Long term (12 months) Preformed crowns for decayed primary molar teeth (2015) · Cochrane | RR 1.74 [0.99, 3.06] | 2 studies · 195 participants | Low |