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.
71 questions in 8 reviews · cluster CL0178
current versionsNo studies 3 · 4.2%Ungraded 54 · 76.1%Very low 2 · 2.8%Low 8 · 11.3%Moderate 1 · 1.4%High 3 · 4.2%
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
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 Restoration longevity · 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; high success in all groups | 8 studies · 889 participants | Low |
Ion-releasing restorations (IRR): RMGIC, HVGIC, GIC, compomer/PMRC, giomer vs Composite resin (CR), including bulk-fill composite Adequate marginal adaptation · 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 [0.96, 1.08] | 5 studies · 335 participants | High |
Ion-releasing restorations (IRR): RMGIC, HVGIC, GIC, compomer/PMRC, giomer vs Composite resin (CR), including bulk-fill composite Absence of marginal discoloration · 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 [0.93, 1.08] | 6 studies · 872 participants | Moderate |
Ion-releasing restorations (IRR): RMGIC, HVGIC, GIC, compomer/PMRC, giomer vs Composite resin (CR), including bulk-fill composite Adequate marginal or tooth integrity · 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] | 6 studies · 930 participants | High |
Ion-releasing restorations (IRR): RMGIC, HVGIC, GIC, compomer/PMRC, giomer vs Composite resin (CR), including bulk-fill composite Retention · 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 [0.98, 1.07] | 5 studies · 555 participants | High |
High-viscosity GIC atraumatic restorative treatment vs No control Restoration survival · Children with caries in primary molars · 1 year, Multi-surface Minimal intervention dentistry for managing carious lesions into dentine in primary teeth: an umbrella review. (2022) | Survival rate 73 | 9 studies | Ungraded |
High-viscosity GIC atraumatic restorative treatment vs No control Restoration survival · Children with caries in primary molars · 1 year, Single-surface Minimal intervention dentistry for managing carious lesions into dentine in primary teeth: an umbrella review. (2022) | Survival rate 95 | 9 studies | Ungraded |
Nanoionomer resin-modified GIC vs HVGIC Restoration failure · Children with carious primary teeth · 1 year, ART; Class I Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious primary teeth without pulp… (2022) | Annual failure rate (%) RMGIC 2.0%; HVGIC 12.8% | 1 study · 50 participants | Ungraded |
Resin-modified GIC vs Composite resin Restoration failure · Children with carious primary teeth · 2 years, Class II Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious primary teeth without pulp… (2022) | Annual failure rate (%) RMGIC 8.4%; composite resin 8.4% | 1 study · 55 participants | Ungraded |
Ion-releasing glass ionomer cement (GIC) restorations vs Resin composite restorations Unacceptable marginal adaptation · Patients with permanent dentition in need of restorations · 1 year, 18 months to 2 years, and 3 years, All types of cavities Secondary caries and marginal adaptation of ion-releasing versus resin composite restorations: a systematic… (2022) | RD 0.01 [-0.01, 0.03] | 9 studies · 2725 participants | Ungraded |
High-viscosity GIC atraumatic restorative treatment vs No control Restoration survival · Children with caries in primary molars · 2 years, Multi-surface Minimal intervention dentistry for managing carious lesions into dentine in primary teeth: an umbrella review. (2022) | Survival rate 59 | 9 studies | Ungraded |
Single-surface ART with high-viscosity GIC vs Multi-surface ART with high-viscosity GIC Mean annual restoration failure rate · Children (2-9 years) with caries in posterior primary teeth · First 3 years, Single-surface Minimal intervention dentistry for managing carious lesions into dentine in primary teeth: an umbrella review. (2022) | Mean annual failure rate (%) 4.7% (van 't Hof 2006) to 5% (de Amorim 2018) | NR | Ungraded |
Atraumatic restorative treatment with GIC vs Conventional restoration (amalgam, conventional GIC, composite resin) Restoration failure · Children (3-13 years) with dentine caries in primary teeth, no pulpal involvement · 12-24 months Minimal intervention dentistry for managing carious lesions into dentine in primary teeth: an umbrella review. (2022) | OR 1.60 [1.13, 2.27] | 6 studies · 1107 participants | Ungraded |
Ion-releasing restoration, glass ionomer-based (conventional GIC, HV-GIC, RMGIC, glass hybrid) vs Resin composite restoration Marginal adaptation (unacceptable marginal adaptation) · Patients with permanent dentition in need of restorations (all cavity types: Black's Class I, II, V, and non-carious… · 3 years Secondary caries and marginal adaptation of ion-releasing versus resin composite restorations: a systematic… (2022) | RD 0.00 [-0.02, 0.02] | 3 studies · 321 participants | Low |
Ion-releasing glass ionomer cement (GIC) restorations vs Resin composite restorations Unacceptable marginal adaptation · Patients with permanent dentition in need of restorations · 3 years, All types of cavities Secondary caries and marginal adaptation of ion-releasing versus resin composite restorations: a systematic… (2022) | RD 0.00 [-0.02, 0.02] | 3 studies · 321 participants | Low |
Conventional GIC vs Compomer and glass carbomer Restoration failure · Children with carious primary teeth · 3 years, ART; Class I and II Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious primary teeth without pulp… (2022) | Annual failure rate (%) GIC 17.5%; compomer 17.5%; glass carbomer 28.7% (cumulative) | 1 study · 568 participants | Ungraded |
Atraumatic restorative treatment with high-viscosity GIC vs Conventional restoration (amalgam / composite resin) Restoration survival · Children with occlusoproximal caries in primary teeth · 2-3 years, Occlusoproximal cavities (Raggio 2013; Tedesco 2017) Minimal intervention dentistry for managing carious lesions into dentine in primary teeth: an umbrella review. (2022) | OR OR 0.298-1.267 (Raggio 2013); Tedesco 2017 ORs 0.298/0.710/1.26 (NS) | NR | Ungraded |
Single-surface ART with high-viscosity GIC vs Multi-surface ART with high-viscosity GIC Restoration survival · Children with caries in primary molars/teeth · 3 years, Single-surface Minimal intervention dentistry for managing carious lesions into dentine in primary teeth: an umbrella review. (2022) | Survival rate (%) 86 | 9 studies | Ungraded |
Multi-surface ART with high-viscosity GIC vs Single-surface ART with high-viscosity GIC Restoration survival · Children with caries in primary molars/teeth · 3 years, Multi-surface Minimal intervention dentistry for managing carious lesions into dentine in primary teeth: an umbrella review. (2022) | Survival rate (%) 49 | 9 studies | Ungraded |
Ion-releasing glass ionomer cement (GIC) restorations vs Resin composite restorations Unacceptable marginal adaptation · Patients with permanent dentition in need of restorations · 1 year, All types of cavities Secondary caries and marginal adaptation of ion-releasing versus resin composite restorations: a systematic… (2022) | RD 0.01 [-0.02, 0.03] | 9 studies · 1386 participants | Low |
Resin-modified GIC vs Compomer and composite resin Restoration failure · Children with carious primary teeth · 4 years, Class I and II Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious primary teeth without pulp… (2022) | Annual failure rate (%) compomer 4.2%; RMGIC 7.3%; composite resin 6.9% | 1 study · 48 participants | Ungraded |
Multi-surface ART with high-viscosity GIC vs Single-surface ART with high-viscosity GIC Mean annual restoration failure rate · Children (2-9 years) with caries in posterior primary teeth · First 3 years, Multi-surface Minimal intervention dentistry for managing carious lesions into dentine in primary teeth: an umbrella review. (2022) | Mean annual failure rate (%) 17 | NR | Ungraded |
High-viscosity GIC atraumatic restorative treatment vs Amalgam or composite resin restoration Restoration survival · Children with occlusoproximal caries in primary teeth · 2–3 years Minimal intervention dentistry for managing carious lesions into dentine in primary teeth: an umbrella review. (2022) | Pooled ART success estimate (Raggio 2013; not an odds ratio) 1.04 | 3 studies | Ungraded |
High-viscosity GIC atraumatic restorative treatment vs No control Restoration survival · Children with caries in primary molars · 2 years, Single-surface Minimal intervention dentistry for managing carious lesions into dentine in primary teeth: an umbrella review. (2022) | Survival rate 91 | 9 studies | Ungraded |
Ion-releasing restoration, glass ionomer-based (conventional GIC, HV-GIC, RMGIC, glass hybrid) vs Resin composite restoration Marginal adaptation (unacceptable marginal adaptation) · Patients with permanent dentition in need of restorations (all cavity types: Black's Class I, II, V, and non-carious… · 18 months-2 years Secondary caries and marginal adaptation of ion-releasing versus resin composite restorations: a systematic… (2022) | RD 0.03 [-0.02, 0.08] | 7 studies · 1018 participants | Low |
Ion-releasing restoration, glass ionomer-based (conventional GIC, HV-GIC, RMGIC, glass hybrid) vs Resin composite restoration Marginal adaptation (unacceptable marginal adaptation) · Patients with permanent dentition in need of restorations (all cavity types: Black's Class I, II, V, and non-carious… · 1 year Secondary caries and marginal adaptation of ion-releasing versus resin composite restorations: a systematic… (2022) | RD 0.01 [-0.02, 0.03] | 9 studies · 1386 participants | Low |
Conventional GIC vs Metal-reinforced GIC Restoration failure · Children with carious primary teeth · 1.5 years, Class II Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious primary teeth without pulp… (2022) | Annual failure rate (%) GIC 16.6%; MRGIC 29.9% | 1 study · 37 participants | Ungraded |
GIC with cavity conditioner vs GIC without cavity conditioner Restoration failure · Children with carious primary teeth · 1 year, ART; Class I Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious primary teeth without pulp… (2022) | Annual failure rate (%) with conditioner 26%; without conditioner 33% | 1 study · 96 participants | Ungraded |
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) Restoration failure · Adults or children with a Class I or Class II resin-based composite restoration in a permanent posterior tooth · 2 years Dental cavity liners for Class I and Class II resin‐based composite restorations (2019) · Cochrane | Three studies evaluated restoration longevity at 2 years follow-up; no failures were shown in either group (effect not estimable). | 3 studies | Ungraded |
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) Restoration failure · Adults or children with a Class I or Class II resin-based composite restoration in a permanent posterior tooth · 1 year Dental cavity liners for Class I and Class II resin‐based composite restorations (2019) · Cochrane | RR 1.00 [0.07, 15.00] | 4 studies | Low |
ART using H-GIC vs Conventional treatment using amalgam Restoration failure (primary teeth) · 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 2.15 [0.73, 6.35] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
ART using H-GIC vs Conventional treatment using composite (with local anaesthetic) Restoration failure (primary teeth) · Children with dental caries in primary teeth · Multiple lesions Atraumatic restorative treatment versus conventional restorative treatment for managing dental caries (2017) · Cochrane | OR 8.00 [1.24, 51.48] | 1 study · 30 participants | Ungraded |
ART using glass ionomer cement (GIC) vs Conventional treatment using amalgam Restoration failure (primary teeth) · Children and adolescents with dental caries (primary teeth and permanent immature teeth) · Lesion type not reported Atraumatic restorative treatment versus conventional restorative treatment for managing dental caries (2017) · Cochrane | OR 0.78 [0.30, 2.02] | 1 study · 80 participants | Ungraded |
ART using composite resin vs Conventional treatment using composite resin Restoration failure (permanent dentition) · Children with dental caries in primary teeth (mean age 7 years) Atraumatic restorative treatment versus conventional restorative treatment for managing dental caries (2017) · Cochrane | No studies reported on restoration failure in the permanent dentition for this comparison. | 0 studies | No studies |
ART using H-GIC vs Conventional treatment using RM-GIC (with local anaesthetic) Restoration failure (permanent, mature teeth) · Adults with root caries in permanent (mature) teeth · Coronal and root caries Atraumatic restorative treatment versus conventional restorative treatment for managing dental caries (2017) · Cochrane | OR 1.46 [0.74, 2.88] | 2 studies · 210 participants | Ungraded |
ART using glass ionomer cement (GIC) vs Conventional treatment using amalgam Restoration failure (permanent, immature teeth) · Children and adolescents with dental caries (primary teeth and permanent immature teeth) · Lesion type not reported Atraumatic restorative treatment versus conventional restorative treatment for managing dental caries (2017) · Cochrane | OR 1.71 [1.32, 2.22] | 1 study · 1629 participants | Ungraded |
ART using composite resin vs Conventional treatment using composite resin Restoration failure (primary dentition) · Children with dental caries in primary teeth (mean age 7 years) · 24 months, Multiple surface lesions Atraumatic restorative treatment versus conventional restorative treatment for managing dental caries (2017) · Cochrane | OR 1.11 [0.54, 2.29] | 1 study · 57 participants | Very low |
ART using resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RM-GIC) vs Conventional treatment using RM-GIC Restoration failure (primary dentition) · 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 | Restoration failure (primary dentition): 0 studies; No studies included. | 0 studies | No studies |
ART using high-viscosity glass ionomer cement (H-GIC), hand instruments vs Conventional treatment using H-GIC (rotary instruments) Restoration failure (permanent dentition) · People with dental caries in primary teeth (mainly children) Atraumatic restorative treatment versus conventional restorative treatment for managing dental caries (2017) · Cochrane | No studies reported on restoration failure in permanent dentition for this comparison. | 0 studies | No studies |
ART using high-viscosity glass ionomer cement (H-GIC), hand instruments vs Conventional treatment using H-GIC (rotary instruments) Restoration failure (primary dentition) · People with dental caries in primary teeth (mainly children) · 12 to 24 months Atraumatic restorative treatment versus conventional restorative treatment for managing dental caries (2017) · Cochrane | OR 1.60 [1.13, 2.27] | 5 studies · 643 participants | Low |
ART using resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RM-GIC) vs Conventional treatment using RM-GIC Restoration failure (permanent, mature dentition; root surfaces) · Older adults with root caries in permanent (mature) teeth (mean age 75 years) · 6 months, Root caries Atraumatic restorative treatment versus conventional restorative treatment for managing dental caries (2017) · Cochrane | OR 2.71 [0.94, 7.81] | 1 study · 64 participants | Very low |
High-viscosity glass-ionomer ART restorations vs No comparator Restoration survival · Permanent posterior teeth with single-surface cavities · 2 years, single-surface permanent posterior teeth, 2 years Survival of atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) sealants and restorations: a meta-analysis. (2011) | Survival percentage 93 [89, 95] | 13 studies | Ungraded |
High-viscosity glass-ionomer ART restorations vs No comparator Restoration survival · Permanent posterior teeth with multiple-surface cavities · 2 years, multiple-surface permanent posterior teeth, 2 years Survival of atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) sealants and restorations: a meta-analysis. (2011) | Survival percentage 41 [18, 67] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Multiple-surface ART restoration using high-viscosity glass ionomer vs None (single-arm survival proportion; no comparator) Restoration survival · Primary posterior teeth with multiple-surface cavities (children) · 2 years, multiple-surface primary posterior teeth, 2 years Survival of atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) sealants and restorations: a meta-analysis. (2011) | Proportion 0.62 [0.51, 0.73] | 6 studies | Ungraded |
High-viscosity glass-ionomer ART restorations vs No comparator Restoration survival · Permanent posterior teeth with single-surface cavities · 4 years, single-surface permanent posterior teeth, 4 years Survival of atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) sealants and restorations: a meta-analysis. (2011) | Survival percentage 86 [78, 93] | 3 studies | Ungraded |
High-viscosity glass-ionomer ART restorations vs No comparator Restoration survival · Primary posterior teeth with single-surface cavities · 1 year, single-surface primary posterior teeth, 1 year Survival of atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) sealants and restorations: a meta-analysis. (2011) | Survival percentage 95 [91, 98] | 9 studies | Ungraded |
High-viscosity glass-ionomer ART restorations vs No comparator Restoration survival · Primary posterior teeth with multiple-surface cavities · 2 years, multiple-surface primary posterior teeth, 2 years Survival of atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) sealants and restorations: a meta-analysis. (2011) | Survival percentage 62 [51, 73] | 6 studies | Ungraded |
High-viscosity glass-ionomer ART restorations vs No comparator Restoration survival · Permanent posterior teeth with multiple-surface cavities · 1 year, multiple-surface permanent posterior teeth, 1 year Survival of atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) sealants and restorations: a meta-analysis. (2011) | Survival percentage 86 [59, 98] | 3 studies | Ungraded |
High-viscosity glass-ionomer ART restorations vs No comparator Restoration survival · Permanent posterior teeth with single-surface cavities · 6 years, single-surface permanent posterior teeth, 6 years Survival of atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) sealants and restorations: a meta-analysis. (2011) | Survival percentage 72 [67, 76] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Multiple-surface ART restoration using high-viscosity glass ionomer vs None (single-arm survival proportion; no comparator) Restoration survival · Primary posterior teeth with multiple-surface cavities (children) · 1 year, multiple-surface primary posterior teeth, 1 year Survival of atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) sealants and restorations: a meta-analysis. (2011) | Proportion 0.71 [0.60, 0.80] | 8 studies | Ungraded |