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.
40 questions in 14 reviews · cluster CL0175
current versionsNo studies 7 · 17.5%Ungraded 23 · 57.5%Very low 3 · 7.5%Low 3 · 7.5%Moderate 1 · 2.5%High 3 · 7.5%
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 Occlusion · Children receiving dental restorations (aged 4-11 years; primary teeth; Class I/II/V cavities) · 2 years Clinical effectiveness of ion-releasing restorations compared to composite restorations in pediatric dental… (2025) | no estimate extracted | 1 study | Ungraded |
Cavity liner (calcium hydroxide, glass-ionomer cement, resin-modified calcium silicate/TheraCal LC, hydraulic calcium silicate/MTA or Biodentine, flowable composite, or other liner material) vs No cavity liner or a different liner material Treatment failure · Patients with deep caries lesions in mature or immature permanent (posterior) teeth, with no symptoms or reversible… · >=12 months Efficacy of different cavity liners compared to no cavity lining in managing deep caries in vital permanent… (2025) | No significant difference; 96.5% of treated teeth remained vital | 12 studies · 1184 participants | Very low |
Ion-releasing restorations (IRR): RMGIC, HVGIC, GIC, compomer/PMRC, giomer vs Composite resin (CR), including bulk-fill composite Integrity of contact point · Children receiving dental restorations (aged 4-11 years; primary teeth; Class I/II/V cavities) · 2 to 5 years Clinical effectiveness of ion-releasing restorations compared to composite restorations in pediatric dental… (2025) | RR 0.99 [0.91, 1.08] | 3 studies · 229 participants | High |
Cavity liner (calcium hydroxide, glass-ionomer cement, resin-modified calcium silicate/TheraCal LC, hydraulic calcium silicate/MTA or Biodentine, flowable composite, or other liner material) vs No cavity liner or a different liner material Tooth survival · Patients with deep caries lesions in mature or immature permanent (posterior) teeth, with no symptoms or reversible… · >=12 months Efficacy of different cavity liners compared to no cavity lining in managing deep caries in vital permanent… (2025) | No significant difference; 99.4% survival in all groups | 12 studies · 1184 participants | Low |
Ion-releasing restorations (IRR): RMGIC, HVGIC, GIC, compomer/PMRC, giomer vs Composite resin (CR), including bulk-fill composite Adequate color or translucency · Children receiving dental restorations (aged 4-11 years; primary teeth; Class I/II/V cavities) · 1 to 2 years Clinical effectiveness of ion-releasing restorations compared to composite restorations in pediatric dental… (2025) | RR 1.02 [0.97, 1.07] | 6 studies · 600 participants | Moderate |
Ion-releasing restorations (IRR): RMGIC, HVGIC, GIC, compomer/PMRC, giomer vs Composite resin (CR), including bulk-fill composite Proper anatomic form · Children receiving dental restorations (aged 4-11 years; primary teeth; Class I/II/V cavities) · 1 to 2 years Clinical effectiveness of ion-releasing restorations compared to composite restorations in pediatric dental… (2025) | RR 1.00 [0.99, 1.01] | 8 studies · 1044 participants | High |
Ion-releasing restorations (IRR): RMGIC, HVGIC, GIC, compomer/PMRC, giomer vs Composite resin (CR), including bulk-fill composite Absence of wear · Children receiving dental restorations (aged 4-11 years; primary teeth; Class I/II/V cavities) · 2 years Clinical effectiveness of ion-releasing restorations compared to composite restorations in pediatric dental… (2025) | no estimate extracted | 1 study | Ungraded |
Ion-releasing restorations (IRR): RMGIC, HVGIC, GIC, compomer/PMRC, giomer vs Composite resin (CR), including bulk-fill composite Proper surface texture or luster · 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 1.00 [0.97, 1.02] | 4 studies · 720 participants | High |
Light-cured resin-modified glass ionomer cement vs Resin adhesive (Transbond XT) First-time bracket failure · Patients undergoing fixed orthodontic treatment · Before and after treatment Can Orthodontic Adhesive Systems Inhibit the Formation and Development of White Spot Lesions During Fixed… (2024) | No differences were observed in the proportions of patients experiencing first-time bracket failures when participants were bonded with either resin adhesive or RM-GIC (p > 0.05). | 1 study · 197 participants | Ungraded |
Glass ionomer (GIC) permanent cement vs Glass ionomer cement or zinc phosphate cement Pulp necrosis incidence · Vital teeth · GIC Incidence and influential factors in pulp necrosis and periapical pathosis following indirect restorations:… (2023) | Proportion 5.33 [2.56, 9.03] | 182 participants | Ungraded |
Resin-modified glass-ionomer cement (RMGIC) restoration vs Amalgam, compomer, composite resin, or glass carbomer Treatment failure (annual failure rate) · Children with previously unrestored, vital carious lesions in primary teeth (no pulp therapy); aged 1.5-11 years · 12-48 months Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious primary teeth without pulp… (2022) | Annual failure rate (%) 1.9-16.9% | 4 studies | Ungraded |
High-viscosity glass-ionomer cement (HVGIC) restoration (conventional restorative approach) vs Compomer, composite resin, or another HVGIC Treatment failure (annual failure rate) · Children with previously unrestored, vital carious lesions in primary teeth (no pulp therapy); aged 1.5-11 years · 12-36 months Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious primary teeth without pulp… (2022) | Annual failure rate (%) 2.9-25.6% | 3 studies | Ungraded |
Restorative materials placed by atraumatic restorative treatment (ART); mostly high-viscosity/conventional GIC, also RMGIC, glass carbomer, compomer, composite resin vs Different ART materials or application techniques (e.g., bilayer vs single-step, with vs without cavity conditioner/disinfectant), or composite resin Treatment failure (annual failure rate) · Children with carious primary teeth treated by atraumatic restorative treatment (hand-instrument caries removal), no… · 12-48 months, Restorative technique (ART) Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious primary teeth without pulp… (2022) | Annual failure rate (%) 1.2-37.1% | 10 studies | Ungraded |
Atraumatic restorative treatment with high-viscosity GIC (class I) vs Amalgam restoration Restoration success/failure · Children (5-7 years) with caries in primary teeth · 24 months Minimal intervention dentistry for managing carious lesions into dentine in primary teeth: an umbrella review. (2022) | RR 1.07 [0.91, 1.27] | 3 studies | Ungraded |
Metal-reinforced glass-ionomer cement (MRGIC) restoration vs Conventional GIC Treatment failure (annual failure rate) · Children with previously unrestored, vital carious lesions in primary teeth (no pulp therapy); aged 1.5-11 years · 1.5 years mean follow-up (Kilpatrick 1995) Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious primary teeth without pulp… (2022) | Annual failure rate (%) 29.9 | 1 study · 37 participants | Ungraded |
Conventional glass-ionomer cement (GIC) restoration vs Amalgam or metal-reinforced GIC Treatment failure (annual failure rate) · Children with previously unrestored, vital carious lesions in primary teeth (no pulp therapy); aged 1.5-11 years · 12-60 months (Welbury 5 years; Kilpatrick 1.5 years mean) Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious primary teeth without pulp… (2022) | Annual failure rate (%) 7.6-16.6% | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Atraumatic restorative treatment with high-viscosity GIC (class I) vs Amalgam restoration Restoration success/failure · Children (5-7 years) with caries in primary teeth · 12 months Minimal intervention dentistry for managing carious lesions into dentine in primary teeth: an umbrella review. (2022) | RR 0.93 [0.83, 1.06] | 3 studies | Ungraded |
Glass ionomer cement vs Amalgam Success rate at 1 year · Patients needing retrograde filling in root canal therapy (orthograde root canal filling or retreatment not possible;… · 1 year Materials for retrograde filling in root canal therapy (2021) · Cochrane | RR 0.98 [0.86, 1.12] | 1 study | Very low |
Glass ionomer cement vs Amalgam Success rate at 5 years · Patients needing retrograde filling in root canal therapy (orthograde root canal filling or retreatment not possible;… · 5 years Materials for retrograde filling in root canal therapy (2021) · Cochrane | RR 1.00 [0.84, 1.20] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Resin-modified glass ionomer cement for bonding orthodontic brackets vs Light-cured composite resin for bonding brackets Number of participants with new demineralised lesions (DLs) · 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 | RR 1.17 [0.69, 1.99] | 1 study · 173 participants | Low |
Resin-modified glass ionomer cement for bonding orthodontic brackets vs Light-cured composite resin for bonding brackets Number of participants with more severe DLs of aesthetic concern · 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 | RR 1.18 [0.45, 3.12] | 1 study · 173 participants | Low |
ART using resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RM-GIC) vs Conventional treatment using RM-GIC Participant experience · 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 | No studies reported on participant experience for this comparison. | 0 studies | No studies |
ART using composite resin vs Conventional treatment using composite resin Participant experience (dental anxiety) · Children with dental caries in primary teeth (mean age 7 years) Atraumatic restorative treatment versus conventional restorative treatment for managing dental caries (2017) · Cochrane | MD 0.00 [-0.52, 0.52] | 1 study · 57 participants | Ungraded |
ART using H-GIC vs Conventional treatment using composite (with local anaesthetic) Pain (primary dentition) · Children with dental caries in primary teeth Atraumatic restorative treatment versus conventional restorative treatment for managing dental caries (2017) · Cochrane | OR 2.22 [0.51, 9.61] | 1 study | Ungraded |
ART using composite resin vs Conventional treatment using composite resin Pain · Children with dental caries in primary teeth (mean age 7 years) Atraumatic restorative treatment versus conventional restorative treatment for managing dental caries (2017) · Cochrane | Pain: Not measured. | 0 studies | No studies |
One type of adhesive used to bond molar tubes (chemically-cured composite, light-cured composite, conventional glass ionomer, poly-acid modified composite/compomer, or resin-modified glass ionomer) vs Any other type of adhesive used to bond molar tubes First-time bond failure · Participants with full arch fixed orthodontic appliance(s) with molar tubes bonded to first or second permanent… Adhesives for bonded molar tubes during fixed brace treatment (2017) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | 0 studies | No studies |
ART using resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RM-GIC) vs Conventional treatment using RM-GIC Pain · 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 | Pain: Not measured. | 0 studies | No studies |
ART using glass ionomer cement (GIC) vs Conventional treatment using amalgam Pain (permanent, immature teeth) · Children and adolescents with dental caries (primary teeth and permanent immature teeth) Atraumatic restorative treatment versus conventional restorative treatment for managing dental caries (2017) · Cochrane | OR 0.41 [0.35, 0.47] | 1 study | Ungraded |
One type of adhesive used to bond molar tubes (chemically-cured composite, light-cured composite, conventional glass ionomer, poly-acid modified composite/compomer, or resin-modified glass ionomer) vs Any other type of adhesive used to bond molar tubes Decalcification (presence or absence of decay around the attachment) · Participants with full arch fixed orthodontic appliance(s) with molar tubes bonded to first or second permanent… Adhesives for bonded molar tubes during fixed brace treatment (2017) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | 0 studies | No studies |
ART using H-GIC vs Conventional treatment using amalgam Pain (primary dentition) · Children with dental caries in primary teeth · Single and multiple lesions Atraumatic restorative treatment versus conventional restorative treatment for managing dental caries (2017) · Cochrane | OR 1.44 [0.45, 4.60] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Chemically cured glass ionomer cement vs Light-cured compomer (polyacid-modified composite resin) Taste preference (patient preference) · Patients with full arch fixed orthodontic appliances with bands attached to molars (patients with cleft lip/palate or… · Approximately 12 months (to end of treatment) Adhesives for fixed orthodontic bands (2016) · Cochrane | Williams 2005 (30 participants): a statistically significant difference in patient taste preference in favour of the glass ionomer over the light-cured composite resin (compomer). | 1 study · 30 participants | Ungraded |
Light-cured resin-modified glass ionomer cement vs Light-cured compomer (polyacid-modified composite resin) Band failure (band adhesive loosening) · Patients with full arch fixed orthodontic appliances with bands attached to molars (patients with cleft lip/palate or… · Approximately 12 months (to end of treatment) Adhesives for fixed orthodontic bands (2016) · Cochrane | Fricker 1997 was a three-arm split-mouth trial that included a light-cured resin-modified glass ionomer arm (compared with light-cured compomer and chemically cured glass ionomer). Failure rates were reported but not… | 1 study | Ungraded |
Chemically cured glass ionomer cement vs Chemically cured glass phosphonate Taste preference (patient preference) · Patients with full arch fixed orthodontic appliances with bands attached to molars (patients with cleft lip/palate or… · Approximately 12 months (to end of treatment) Adhesives for fixed orthodontic bands (2016) · Cochrane | Clark 2003: no statistically significant difference in taste between the two cements (glass ionomer vs glass phosphonate); authors caution the finding because both cements were used at the same sitting, so the taste of… | 1 study | Ungraded |
Glass ionomer cement root-end filling vs Amalgam Healing - 5 years · People requiring retreatment of periapical lesions (failed root canal therapy) · 5 years Endodontic procedures for retreatment of periapical lesions (2016) · Cochrane | RR 1.00 [0.84, 1.20] | 1 study · 67 participants | Ungraded |
Glass ionomer cement root-end filling vs Amalgam Healing - 1 year · People requiring retreatment of periapical lesions (failed root canal therapy) · 1 year Endodontic procedures for retreatment of periapical lesions (2016) · Cochrane | RR 0.98 [0.86, 1.12] | 1 study · 105 participants | Very low |
Chemically cured glass ionomer cement vs Chemically cured glass phosphonate Band failure (band adhesive loosening) · Patients with full arch fixed orthodontic appliances with bands attached to molars (patients with cleft lip/palate or… · Approximately 12 months (to end of treatment) Adhesives for fixed orthodontic bands (2016) · Cochrane | Clark 2003: failure rates presented per adhesive group by number of bands failing (overall proportion of band failure 0.048 for each material); no per-patient failure data. Low band failure rates; insufficient evidence… | 1 study | Ungraded |
Chemically cured glass ionomer cement vs Light-cured compomer (polyacid-modified composite resin) Band failure (band adhesive loosening) · Patients with full arch fixed orthodontic appliances with bands attached to molars (patients with cleft lip/palate or… · Approximately 12 months (to end of treatment) Adhesives for fixed orthodontic bands (2016) · Cochrane | No meta-analysis. Fricker 1997: failure data not presented in an analysable format (number of bands or failures per person not given). Gillgrass 2001 (98 participants; 140 band pairs): 4 single-band failures with… | 3 studies | Ungraded |
A permanent restorative material or technique (e.g. amalgam; glass ionomer (type I-IV); composite resin (macrofilled, microfilled, hybrid, nanofilled); resin-modified glass ionomer (compomer, giomer); cement/cermet; stainless steel or nickel-chrome crown; pre-fabricated resin/porcelain veneer facing; microabrasion) vs A different permanent restorative material or technique Outcome NR · Children and adolescents under 18 years with amelogenesis imperfecta requiring restorative care of anterior teeth,… Interventions for the restorative care of amelogenesis imperfecta in children and adolescents (2013) · Cochrane | Main results: No studies met the inclusion criteria for this review. Effects of interventions: No studies met the inclusion criteria. | 0 studies | No studies |
A permanent restorative material or technique (e.g. amalgam; glass ionomer (type I-IV); composite resin (macrofilled, microfilled, hybrid, nanofilled); resin-modified glass ionomer (compomer, giomer); cement/cermet; stainless steel or nickel-chrome crown; pre-fabricated resin/porcelain veneer facing; microabrasion) vs A different permanent restorative material or technique Outcome NR · Children and adolescents under 18 years with amelogenesis imperfecta requiring restorative care of posterior teeth,… Interventions for the restorative care of amelogenesis imperfecta in children and adolescents (2013) · Cochrane | Main results: No studies met the inclusion criteria for this review. Effects of interventions: No studies met the inclusion criteria. | 0 studies | No studies |
Resin-modified glass ionomer (Vitremer) vs Amalgam Replacement (failure) of Class II restoration at 12 months · Children aged 12 years or younger with tooth decay involving at least one tooth in the primary dentition, symptomatic… · 12 months Dental fillings for the treatment of caries in the primary dentition (2009) · Cochrane | OR 0.64 [0.10, 4.15] | 1 study · 60 participants | Ungraded |