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.
2 questions in 2 reviews · cluster CL0207
current versionsNo studies 1 · 50%Ungraded 1 · 50%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 |
|---|---|---|---|
Hall Technique (sealing with a preformed metal crown) vs Non-restorative cavity control (NRCC) 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 NRCC in primary teeth (Santamaria 2018); not GRADE-rated. | 1 study | Ungraded |
Single full-coverage metal-ceramic crown over composite core and post vs Direct adhesive composite restoration with post (conventional filling, no crown) Costs for the use of different treatment interventions · People with a permanent tooth that has undergone endodontic (root canal) treatment Single crowns versus conventional fillings for the restoration of root‐filled teeth (2015) · Cochrane | No data were reported nor measured by the study. The abstract confirms no evidence was available for any secondary outcome. | NR | No studies |