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.
23 questions in 4 reviews · intervention: Pit-and-fissure sealants · outcome domain: Restoration survival/failure
current versionsNo studies 0 · 0%Ungraded 20 · 87%Very low 3 · 13%Low 0 · 0%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 |
|---|---|---|---|
Fluoride-releasing resin-based sealant vs Resin-based sealant Retention of sealant (complete or partial retention) · Children with caries-free second primary molars, aged 4-8 years (dental clinic, Turkey and Spain) · 6-24 months Sealants for preventing dental caries in primary teeth (2022) · Cochrane | Effect estimate not calculable; 69 (2 studies). Retention equivocal: Unal 2015 100% (fluoride resin) vs 96.0% (resin) at 12 months; Baca 2007 84.1% (fluoride resin) vs 97.7% (resin) at 12 months; at 24 months 87.8% vs… | 2 studies · 69 participants | Very low |
Glass ionomer-based sealant vs No sealant Retention of sealant (complete or partial retention) · Children with caries-free primary first molars (with or without caries on other teeth), aged 1-5 years (paediatric… · 6-30 months Sealants for preventing dental caries in primary teeth (2022) · Cochrane | Chadwick 2005: one or more sealants fully/partially retained in 69 (31.2%) children at 12-30 months; Joshi 2019: at 12 months 75 (43.6%) teeth completely retained, 58 (33.7%) partially retained, 39 (22.7%) completely… | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Autopolymerised sealant vs Light polymerised sealant Retention of sealant (complete or partial retention) · Children with sound primary molars, aged 2-4 years (municipal dental clinics or hospital paediatric clinics, Denmark) · 24-36 months Sealants for preventing dental caries in primary teeth (2022) · Cochrane | OR 0.68 [0.33, 1.44] | 1 study · 52 participants | Very low |
Fluoride-releasing resin-based sealant vs No sealant (no treatment) Retention of sealant (complete or partial retention) · Children with caries-free or non-cavitated carious lesion primary molars, aged 3-7 years (paediatric department,… · 12-24 months Sealants for preventing dental caries in primary teeth (2022) · Cochrane | At 12 months, sealants on 96 (70.1%) surfaces completely retained, 25 (18.3%) partially retained, 16 (11.6%) completely lost; at 24 months, 58 (45.3%) completely retained, 29 (22.7%) partially retained, 41 (32%)… | 1 study | Ungraded |
Glass ionomer-based sealant vs Resin-based sealant (fluoride-releasing or non-fluoride-releasing) Retention of sealant (complete or partial retention) · 'Healthy' children with caries-free second primary molars, aged 3-5 years (schools and kindergartens, India and China) · 24 months Sealants for preventing dental caries in primary teeth (2022) · Cochrane | BB OR 0.20 [0.11, 0.36] | 1 study · 100 participants | Very low |
Micro-invasive treatment (proximal sealing or resin infiltration): resin sealant, glass ionomer sealant, polyurethane/adhesive patch, or resin infiltration vs Non-invasive measures (e.g. fluoride varnish, flossing/oral hygiene advice), no treatment, or placebo Material deficiency (retention/adaptation loss; re-treatment) · Dentate children and adults with non-cavitated proximal caries lesions extending into enamel or dentine (not pulp) in… · 3 years Micro‐invasive interventions for managing proximal dental decay in primary and permanent teeth (2015) · Cochrane | One study (Alkilzy 2011, sealant patch) reported material deficiency: 10% total and 23% partial loss of proximal sealants after three years; 53% maintained perfect margins and none had open margins. No studies reported… | 1 study | Ungraded |
Resin-based fissure sealants vs Glass-ionomer cement-based fissure sealants Retention-to-caries risk ratio (RCR) · Patients with fissure-sealed permanent molar teeth · Longest follow-up per trial, Sensitivity analysis Validity of sealant retention as surrogate for caries prevention--a systematic review. (2013) | Mean RCR (retention-to-caries risk ratio); t-test of difference Resin vs GIC difference not statistically significant (p=0.069); sensitivity-analysis mean RCRs not reported | 14 studies | Ungraded |
Glass-ionomer cement-based fissure sealants vs No comparator (within-material surrogate-validity regression) Association between loss of complete retention risk and caries occurrence risk · Patients with fissure-sealed permanent molar teeth · At least 24 months, Main analysis Validity of sealant retention as surrogate for caries prevention--a systematic review. (2013) | Regression slope (ln caries risk on ln retention-loss risk) 0.81 [-0.07, 1.68] | 22 studies · 3768 participants | Ungraded |
Resin-based fissure sealants vs No comparator (within-material surrogate-validity regression) Association between loss of complete retention risk and caries occurrence risk · Patients with fissure-sealed permanent molar teeth · At least 24 months, Main analysis Validity of sealant retention as surrogate for caries prevention--a systematic review. (2013) | Regression slope (ln caries risk on ln retention-loss risk) 0.89 [0.56, 1.23] | 54 studies · 17377 participants | Ungraded |
Glass-ionomer cement-based fissure sealants vs No comparator (within-material surrogate-validity regression) Association between loss of complete retention risk and caries occurrence risk · Patients with fissure-sealed permanent molar teeth · Longest follow-up per trial, Sensitivity analysis Validity of sealant retention as surrogate for caries prevention--a systematic review. (2013) | Regression slope (ln caries risk on ln retention-loss risk) 1.44 [0.71, 2.18] | 14 studies · 2307 participants | Ungraded |
Resin-based fissure sealants vs Glass-ionomer cement-based fissure sealants Retention-to-caries risk ratio (RCR) · Patients with fissure-sealed permanent molar teeth · At least 24 months, Main analysis Validity of sealant retention as surrogate for caries prevention--a systematic review. (2013) | Mean RCR (retention-to-caries risk ratio); t-test of difference Resin mean RCR 9.64 (SD 24.58) vs GIC 13.68 (SD 13.72); p=0.017 | 62 studies | Ungraded |
Resin-based fissure sealants vs No comparator (within-material surrogate-validity regression) Association between loss of complete retention risk and caries occurrence risk · Patients with fissure-sealed permanent molar teeth · Longest follow-up per trial, Sensitivity analysis Validity of sealant retention as surrogate for caries prevention--a systematic review. (2013) | Regression slope (ln caries risk on ln retention-loss risk) 0.53 [-0.27, 1.32] | 14 studies · 3154 participants | Ungraded |
ART sealant using high-viscosity glass ionomer (press-finger technique) vs None (single-arm survival proportion; no comparator) Sealant retention (partially and fully retained) · Pits and fissures of permanent (posterior) teeth · 4 years, partially and fully retained high-viscosity glass-ionomer ART sealants in permanent dentitions, 4 years Survival of atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) sealants and restorations: a meta-analysis. (2011) | Proportion 0.68 [0.61, 0.75] | 1 study | Ungraded |
High-viscosity glass-ionomer ART sealants vs No comparator Sealant retention · Permanent teeth · 1 year, partially and fully retained high-viscosity glass-ionomer ART sealants in permanent dentitions, 1 year Survival of atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) sealants and restorations: a meta-analysis. (2011) | Survival percentage 75 [51, 91] | 3 studies | Ungraded |
ART sealant using high-viscosity glass ionomer (press-finger technique) vs None (single-arm survival proportion; no comparator) Sealant retention (partially and fully retained) · Pits and fissures of permanent (posterior) teeth · 2 years, partially and fully retained high-viscosity glass-ionomer ART sealants in permanent dentitions, 2 years Survival of atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) sealants and restorations: a meta-analysis. (2011) | Proportion 0.82 [0.77, 0.86] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
ART sealant using high-viscosity glass ionomer (press-finger technique) vs None (single-arm survival proportion; no comparator) Sealant retention (partially and fully retained) · Pits and fissures of permanent (posterior) teeth · 3 years, partially and fully retained high-viscosity glass-ionomer ART sealants in permanent dentitions, 3 years Survival of atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) sealants and restorations: a meta-analysis. (2011) | Proportion 0.72 [0.72, 0.86] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
ART sealant using high-viscosity glass ionomer (press-finger technique) vs None (single-arm survival proportion; no comparator) Sealant retention (partially and fully retained) · Pits and fissures of permanent (posterior) teeth · 1 year, partially and fully retained high-viscosity glass-ionomer ART sealants in permanent dentitions, 1 year Survival of atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) sealants and restorations: a meta-analysis. (2011) | Proportion 0.75 [0.51, 0.91] | 3 studies | Ungraded |
ART sealant using high-viscosity glass ionomer (press-finger technique) vs None (single-arm survival proportion; no comparator) Sealant retention (partially and fully retained) · Pits and fissures of permanent (posterior) teeth · 5 years, partially and fully retained high-viscosity glass-ionomer ART sealants in permanent dentitions, 5 years Survival of atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) sealants and restorations: a meta-analysis. (2011) | Proportion 0.63 [0.56, 0.70] | 1 study | Ungraded |
High-viscosity glass-ionomer ART sealants vs No comparator Sealant retention · Permanent teeth · 3 years, partially and fully retained high-viscosity glass-ionomer ART sealants in permanent dentitions, 3 years Survival of atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) sealants and restorations: a meta-analysis. (2011) | Survival percentage 72 [72, 86] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
High-viscosity glass-ionomer ART sealants vs No comparator Sealant retention · Permanent teeth · 2 years, partially and fully retained high-viscosity glass-ionomer ART sealants in permanent dentitions, 2 years Survival of atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) sealants and restorations: a meta-analysis. (2011) | Survival percentage 82 [77, 86] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
ART sealant using high-viscosity glass ionomer (press-finger technique) vs None (single-arm survival proportion; no comparator) Sealant retention (partially and fully retained) · Pits and fissures of permanent (posterior) teeth · 6 years, partially and fully retained high-viscosity glass-ionomer ART sealants in permanent dentitions, 6 years Survival of atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) sealants and restorations: a meta-analysis. (2011) | Proportion 0.59 [0.51, 0.67] | 1 study | Ungraded |
High-viscosity glass-ionomer ART sealants vs No comparator Sealant retention · Permanent teeth · 5 years, partially and fully retained high-viscosity glass-ionomer ART sealants in permanent dentitions, 5 years Survival of atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) sealants and restorations: a meta-analysis. (2011) | Survival percentage 63 [56, 70] | 1 study | Ungraded |
High-viscosity glass-ionomer ART sealants vs No comparator Sealant retention · Permanent teeth · 4 years, partially and fully retained high-viscosity glass-ionomer ART sealants in permanent dentitions, 4 years Survival of atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) sealants and restorations: a meta-analysis. (2011) | Survival percentage 68 [61, 75] | 1 study | Ungraded |