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.

Population

Intervention or exposure

Comparison

Outcome

Any field or review title

Field or topic

Source

Review versions

3 questions in 3 reviews · intervention: Restorative materials · outcome domain: Cost/economic

current versions

No studies 2 · 66.7%Ungraded 1 · 33.3%Very low 0 · 0%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
Non-selective carious tissue removal and conventional restoration (CR) vs Hall Technique (sealing with a preformed metal crown) Efficiency, costs or cost-effectiveness · Children and/or adults with permanent or primary teeth, vital (sensitive) pulps, and cavitated or dentine carious… · Primary dentition Interventions for treating cavitated or dentine carious lesions (2021) · Cochrane	Cost-effectiveness reported narratively: HT found more cost-effective than CR in primary teeth (Innes 2011; Santamaria 2018); not GRADE-rated.	2 studies	Ungraded
Adhesively bonded amalgam restorations in conventional preparations utilising deliberate retention (all bonding agents) vs Traditional non‐bonded amalgam restorations Economic data: direct costs of materials and any reported associated indirect costs · Adults and adolescents with permanent posterior molar and premolar teeth suitable for Class I and II, but excluding… Adhesively bonded versus non‐bonded amalgam restorations for dental caries (2016) · Cochrane	Economic data: direct costs of materials and any reported associated indirect costs - not measured \| See comment \| See comment \| Not estimable \| - \| See comment \| No study addressed this outcome	0 studies	No studies
Resin composite restorations (filling and bonding systems) containing antibacterial agents vs Composite restorations not containing antibacterial agents Costs (direct costs of interventions) · Adults and adolescents in any age group with restorations in the permanent dentition and children with restorations in… Antibacterial agents in composite restorations for the prevention of dental caries (2013) · Cochrane	No studies were included in this review, as we were unable to find any trials directly comparing antibacterial containing composites to other active interventions or controls.	0 studies	No studies