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.
106 questions in 20 reviews · cluster CL0210
current versionsNo studies 16 · 15.1%Ungraded 69 · 65.1%Very low 17 · 16%Low 3 · 2.8%Moderate 0 · 0%High 1 · 0.9%
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 |
|---|---|---|---|
Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) pulpotomy dressing vs Platelet-rich fibrin (PRF) Clinical and radiographic success · Immature (young) permanent teeth with open apex and vital pulp exposed to dental caries or trauma, in children aged… · 6, 12 and 24 months Materials for pulpotomy in immature permanent teeth: a systematic review and meta-analysis. (2019) | Single RCT (Keswani 2014, 62 teeth): 100% clinical and radiographic success in both MTA and PRF at 6, 12 and 24 months (MTA 29/29, 27/27, 26/26; PRF 30/30, 29/29, 27/27); no difference between groups; not pooled | 1 study · 62 participants | Ungraded |
Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) pulpotomy dressing vs Calcium hydroxide (CH) Clinical and radiographic success · Immature (young) permanent teeth with open apex and vital pulp exposed to dental caries or trauma, in children aged… · 6 months Materials for pulpotomy in immature permanent teeth: a systematic review and meta-analysis. (2019) | RR 1.00 [0.94, 1.06] | 2 studies · 109 participants | Ungraded |
Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) pulpotomy dressing vs Calcium-enriched mixture (CEM) cement Clinical and radiographic success · Immature (young) permanent teeth with open apex and vital pulp exposed to dental caries or trauma, in children aged… · 6 and 12 months Materials for pulpotomy in immature permanent teeth: a systematic review and meta-analysis. (2019) | Single RCT (Nosrat 2012, 118 roots): 100% clinical and radiographic success in both MTA and CEM at 6 and 12 months (MTA 53/53 then 54/54 roots; CEM 55/55 then 57/57 roots); no statistical difference between groups at… | 1 study · 118 participants | Ungraded |
Pulpotomy vs Pulpectomy Pathological periapical radiolucency · Children with carious vital pulp exposure in primary incisors · Longest follow-up Pulpotomy versus pulpectomy in the treatment of vital pulp exposure in primary incisors. A systematic review… (2019) | The results of two trials showed considerable statistical heterogeneity so no meta-analysis was performed for this outcome. | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Pulpotomy vs Pulpectomy Clinical failure · Children with carious vital pulp exposure in primary incisors · Longest follow-up: 18 to 24 months; 15 to 23 months in Howley et al., Overall Pulpotomy versus pulpectomy in the treatment of vital pulp exposure in primary incisors. A systematic review… (2019) | RR 2.63 [0.76, 9.58] | 2 studies · 264 participants | Ungraded |
Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) pulpotomy dressing vs Calcium hydroxide (CH) Clinical and radiographic success · Immature (young) permanent teeth with open apex and vital pulp exposed to dental caries or trauma, in children aged… · 12 months Materials for pulpotomy in immature permanent teeth: a systematic review and meta-analysis. (2019) | RR 1.04 [0.96, 1.13] | 2 studies · 109 participants | Ungraded |
Pulpotomy vs Pulpectomy Soft tissue pathology · Children with carious vital pulp exposure in primary incisors · Longest follow-up Pulpotomy versus pulpectomy in the treatment of vital pulp exposure in primary incisors. A systematic review… (2019) | RR 3.11 [0.54, 17.7] | NR | Ungraded |
Pulpotomy vs Pulpectomy Pathological mobility · Children with carious vital pulp exposure in primary incisors · Longest follow-up Pulpotomy versus pulpectomy in the treatment of vital pulp exposure in primary incisors. A systematic review… (2019) | Pathologic mobility was not reported for any tooth in three trials (Howley, Aminabadi, Casas); only one tooth with pathological mobility was reported by Nguyen et al. Not pooled. | 4 studies | Ungraded |
Pulpotomy vs Pulpectomy Pathological root resorption · Children with carious vital pulp exposure in primary incisors · Longest follow-up Pulpotomy versus pulpectomy in the treatment of vital pulp exposure in primary incisors. A systematic review… (2019) | RR 1.5 [0.56, 4.04] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) pulpotomy dressing vs Abscess remedy (AR) Clinical and radiographic success · Immature (young) permanent teeth with open apex and vital pulp exposed to dental caries or trauma, in children aged… · 3 to 24 months Materials for pulpotomy in immature permanent teeth: a systematic review and meta-analysis. (2019) | Single RCT (Eppa 2018, 3-arm; 20 MTA and 20 AR teeth): MTA 100% (20/20) vs abscess remedy 80% (16/20) clinical and radiographic success; the 4 abscess-remedy failures occurred at 3 months; difference statistically… | 1 study · 40 participants | Ungraded |
Pulpotomy vs Pulpectomy Radiographic failure · Children with carious vital pulp exposure in primary incisors · Longest follow-up (15-24 months) Pulpotomy versus pulpectomy in the treatment of vital pulp exposure in primary incisors. A systematic review… (2019) | RR 0.79 [0.25, 2.42] | 3 studies · 338 participants | Ungraded |
Mineral trioxide aggregate (MTA) pulpotomy dressing vs Triple antibiotic paste (TAP) Clinical and radiographic success · Immature (young) permanent teeth with open apex and vital pulp exposed to dental caries or trauma, in children aged… · 1 to 24 months Materials for pulpotomy in immature permanent teeth: a systematic review and meta-analysis. (2019) | Single RCT (Eppa 2018, 3-arm; 20 MTA and 20 TAP teeth): 100% clinical and radiographic success in both MTA and TAP at all follow-ups (1-24 months); no difference between groups; not pooled | 1 study · 40 participants | Ungraded |
Pulpotomy vs Pulpectomy Pain · Children with carious vital pulp exposure in primary incisors · Longest follow-up Pulpotomy versus pulpectomy in the treatment of vital pulp exposure in primary incisors. A systematic review… (2019) | RR 2.06 [0.31, 13.8] | NR | Ungraded |
Pulpotomy vs Pulpectomy Pulp canal obliteration · Children with carious vital pulp exposure in primary incisors · 23-24 months Pulpotomy versus pulpectomy in the treatment of vital pulp exposure in primary incisors. A systematic review… (2019) | Pulp canal obliteration seen in 18 teeth (60%) in the pulpotomy group at 23 months (Howley et al.); none at 2 years (Aminabadi et al.); 3 teeth (25%) in the pulpotomy group at 2 years (Casas et al.). Not pooled. | 3 studies | Ungraded |
Pulpotomy vs Pulpectomy Radiographic failure · Children with carious vital pulp exposure in primary incisors · Longest follow-up (18-23 months), Sensitivity analysis excluding Aminabadi et al. (outlier) Pulpotomy versus pulpectomy in the treatment of vital pulp exposure in primary incisors. A systematic review… (2019) | RR 0.45 [0.25, 0.83] | 2 studies · 246 participants | Ungraded |
Ferric sulphate/MTA pulpotomy vs Zinc oxide and eugenol (ZOE) pulpectomy Clinical failure · Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth · 18 months Pulp treatment for extensive decay in primary teeth (2018) · Cochrane | RR 2.16 [0.23, 20.35] | 1 study · 172 participants | Ungraded |
Conventional restorative treatment with compomer vs Other network treatments Treatment success rate · Primary teeth with dentin caries lesions on occlusal surfaces · Various follow-up times, Occlusal surface without reported lesion depth Scientific evidence for the management of dentin caries lesions in pediatric dentistry: A systematic review… (2018) | RANK 1 | 5 studies | Low |
Hall technique vs Other network treatments Treatment success rate · Primary teeth with dentin caries lesions on occlusoproximal surfaces · Various follow-up times, Occlusoproximal surface without reported lesion depth Scientific evidence for the management of dentin caries lesions in pediatric dentistry: A systematic review… (2018) | RANK 1 | 7 studies | Low |
Conventional restorative treatment with resin composite (CRT-RC) vs Sealing (resin sealant over caries) Treatment success rate (survival/success of restoration) · Children with dentin caries lesions in the outer half of dentin on occlusal surfaces of primary teeth · Mixed follow-up (6 months to 1.5 years; pooled) Scientific evidence for the management of dentin caries lesions in pediatric dentistry: A systematic review… (2018) | RR 1.20 [1.06, 1.37] | 2 studies · 66 participants | Low |
Formocresol (FC) pulpotomy vs Calcium hydroxide pulpectomy Outcome NR · Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth Pulp treatment for extensive decay in primary teeth (2018) · Cochrane | Coser 2008 randomised 51 teeth; no data provided for any outcome | 0 studies | No studies |
Ferric sulphate (FS)/zinc oxide and eugenol (ZOE) pulpotomy vs Sedanol (ZOE) pulpectomy Radiological failure · Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth · 24 months Pulp treatment for extensive decay in primary teeth (2018) · Cochrane | RR 0.60 [0.25, 1.46] | 1 study · 291 participants | Ungraded |
Ferric sulphate/MTA pulpotomy vs Zinc oxide and eugenol (ZOE) pulpectomy Radiological failure · Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth · 18 months Pulp treatment for extensive decay in primary teeth (2018) · Cochrane | RR 0.84 [0.29, 2.39] | 1 study · 172 participants | Ungraded |
3Mix (ciprofloxacin + metronidazole + minocycline) pulpotomy vs 3Mix pulpectomy Clinical failure · Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth · 12 months Pulp treatment for extensive decay in primary teeth (2018) · Cochrane | RR 5.00 [0.25, 99.95] | 1 study · 60 participants | Ungraded |
3Mix (ciprofloxacin + metronidazole + minocycline) pulpotomy vs 3Mix pulpectomy Radiological failure · Children with extensive decay involving the dental pulp in primary teeth · 12 months Pulp treatment for extensive decay in primary teeth (2018) · Cochrane | RR 11.00 [0.64, 190.53] | 1 study · 60 participants | Ungraded |
Metal-free single crowns (full-contour zirconia) vs Cast gold (conventional metal) single crowns Crown failure · Adults (18 years or older) needing a single crown in the molar or premolar region · 12 months Metal‐free materials for fixed prosthodontic restorations (2017) · Cochrane | OR 0.83 [0.05, 13.44] | 1 study · 194 participants | Very low |
Metal-free implant-supported single crowns (zirconia veneered with feldspathic ceramic) vs Metal-ceramic implant-supported single crowns Aesthetic evaluation (patient satisfaction VAS) · Adults (18 years or older) with one missing tooth in the aesthetic zone needing an implant-supported single crown · 12 months Metal‐free materials for fixed prosthodontic restorations (2017) · Cochrane | MD -4.65 [-18.75, 9.45] | 1 study · 18 participants | Very low |
Metal-free single crowns (full-contour zirconia) vs Cast gold (conventional metal) single crowns Crown complications · Adults (18 years or older) needing a single crown in the molar or premolar region · 60 months Metal‐free materials for fixed prosthodontic restorations (2017) · Cochrane | OR 1.44 [0.59, 3.52] | 1 study · 158 participants | Very low |
Metal-free single crowns (full-contour zirconia) vs Cast gold (conventional metal) single crowns Crown complications · Adults (18 years or older) needing a single crown in the molar or premolar region · 12 months Metal‐free materials for fixed prosthodontic restorations (2017) · Cochrane | OR 4.31 [0.49, 37.57] | 1 study · 194 participants | Very low |
Metal-free implant-supported single crowns (zirconia veneered with feldspathic ceramic) vs Metal-ceramic implant-supported single crowns Aesthetic evaluation (patient satisfaction VAS) · Adults (18 years or older) with one missing tooth in the aesthetic zone needing an implant-supported single crown · 24 months Metal‐free materials for fixed prosthodontic restorations (2017) · Cochrane | MD -0.03 [-7.65, 7.59] | 1 study · 18 participants | Very low |
Metal-free implant-supported single crowns (zirconia veneered with feldspathic ceramic) vs Metal-ceramic implant-supported single crowns Aesthetic evaluation (pink and white aesthetic score, PES and WES total) · Adults (18 years or older) with one missing tooth in the aesthetic zone needing an implant-supported single crown · 24 months Metal‐free materials for fixed prosthodontic restorations (2017) · Cochrane | MD -0.77 [-3.00, 1.46] | 1 study · 18 participants | Very low |
Metal-free single crowns (full-contour zirconia) vs Cast gold (conventional metal) single crowns Aesthetic evaluation · Adults (18 years or older) needing a single crown in the molar or premolar region Metal‐free materials for fixed prosthodontic restorations (2017) · Cochrane | No data were presented with regard to aesthetics. | 0 studies | No studies |
Metal-free implant-supported single crowns (zirconia veneered with feldspathic ceramic) vs Metal-ceramic implant-supported single crowns Implant crown failure · Adults (18 years or older) with one missing tooth in the aesthetic zone needing an implant-supported single crown · 12 and 24 months Metal‐free materials for fixed prosthodontic restorations (2017) · Cochrane | At 12 and 24 months 18 participants were available. No failure was reported for the test or control groups at either 12 or 24 months. | 1 study · 18 participants | Very low |
Metal-free single crowns (full-contour zirconia) vs Cast gold (conventional metal) single crowns Crown failure · Adults (18 years or older) needing a single crown in the molar or premolar region · 60 months Metal‐free materials for fixed prosthodontic restorations (2017) · Cochrane | OR 17.52 [5.07, 60.54] | 1 study · 158 participants | Very low |
Metal-free implant-supported single crowns (zirconia veneered with feldspathic ceramic) vs Metal-ceramic implant-supported single crowns Implant crown complications · Adults (18 years or older) with one missing tooth in the aesthetic zone needing an implant-supported single crown · 24 months Metal‐free materials for fixed prosthodontic restorations (2017) · Cochrane | OR 6.33 [0.26, 152.86] | 1 study · 18 participants | Very low |
Endodontic therapy (surgical or non-surgical) performed with the aid of one or more magnification devices (surgical microscope, endoscope or magnifying loupes) vs The same endodontic therapy performed without magnification devices (without visual enhancers) Quality of root-end filling (retrograde/surgical treatment) · Patients of any age who received endodontic therapy and were followed up for at least 1 year after treatment Magnification devices for endodontic therapy (2015) · Cochrane | No included study assessed this outcome; the review notes that such secondary outcomes were only sporadically reported and were never statistically assessed. | NR | No studies |
Endodontic therapy performed with one type of magnification device (surgical microscope, endoscope or magnifying loupes) vs Endodontic therapy performed with a different type of magnification device Quality of root-end filling (retrograde/surgical treatment) · Patients of any age who received endodontic therapy and were followed up for at least 1 year after treatment Magnification devices for endodontic therapy (2015) · Cochrane | No included study assessed this outcome; the review notes that such secondary outcomes were only sporadically reported and were never statistically assessed. | NR | No studies |
Single full-coverage metal-ceramic crown over composite core and post vs Direct adhesive composite restoration with post (conventional filling, no crown) Catastrophic failure of the restored tooth or restoration leading directly to extraction · People with a permanent tooth that has undergone endodontic (root canal) treatment · 3 years Single crowns versus conventional fillings for the restoration of root‐filled teeth (2015) · Cochrane | SoF 'Catastrophic failure of restoration': assumed risk (conventional filling) 0, corresponding risk (single crown) 0; no events in either group so a relative effect was not estimable; 117 participants (1 study); GRADE… | 1 study · 117 participants | Very low |
Endodontic therapy (surgical or non-surgical) performed with the aid of one or more magnification devices (surgical microscope, endoscope or magnifying loupes) vs The same endodontic therapy performed without magnification devices (without visual enhancers) Removal of broken (fractured) instruments from the root canal · Patients of any age who received endodontic therapy and were followed up for at least 1 year after treatment Magnification devices for endodontic therapy (2015) · Cochrane | No included study assessed this outcome; the review notes that such secondary outcomes were only sporadically reported and were never statistically assessed. | NR | No studies |
Endodontic therapy (surgical or non-surgical) performed with the aid of one or more magnification devices (surgical microscope, endoscope or magnifying loupes) vs The same endodontic therapy performed without magnification devices (without visual enhancers) Repair of root perforations · Patients of any age who received endodontic therapy and were followed up for at least 1 year after treatment Magnification devices for endodontic therapy (2015) · Cochrane | No included study assessed this outcome; the review notes that such secondary outcomes were only sporadically reported and were never statistically assessed. | NR | No studies |
Single full-coverage metal-ceramic crown over composite core and post vs Direct adhesive composite restoration with post (conventional filling, no crown) Non-catastrophic failure of the post · People with a permanent tooth that has undergone endodontic (root canal) treatment · 3 years Single crowns versus conventional fillings for the restoration of root‐filled teeth (2015) · Cochrane | RR 1.96 [0.18, 21.01] | 1 study · 117 participants | Very low |
Single full-coverage metal-ceramic crown over composite core and post vs Direct adhesive composite restoration with post (conventional filling, no crown) Incidence or recurrence of caries (assessed clinically or by radiographs) · 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 |
Endodontic therapy performed with one type of magnification device (surgical microscope, endoscope or magnifying loupes) vs Endodontic therapy performed with a different type of magnification device Repair of root perforations · Patients of any age who received endodontic therapy and were followed up for at least 1 year after treatment Magnification devices for endodontic therapy (2015) · Cochrane | No included study assessed this outcome; the review notes that such secondary outcomes were only sporadically reported and were never statistically assessed. | NR | No studies |
Endodontic therapy (surgical or non-surgical) performed with the aid of one or more magnification devices (surgical microscope, endoscope or magnifying loupes) vs The same endodontic therapy performed without magnification devices (without visual enhancers) Quality of visualisation of root canal anatomy and morphology · Patients of any age who received endodontic therapy and were followed up for at least 1 year after treatment Magnification devices for endodontic therapy (2015) · Cochrane | No included study assessed this outcome; the review notes that such secondary outcomes were only sporadically reported and were never statistically assessed. | NR | No studies |
Endodontic therapy (surgical or non-surgical) performed with the aid of one or more magnification devices (surgical microscope, endoscope or magnifying loupes) vs The same endodontic therapy performed without magnification devices (without visual enhancers) Treatment success (resolution of clinical signs and symptoms with periapical radiographic healing) · Patients of any age who received endodontic therapy and were followed up for at least 1 year after treatment · >=1 year after treatment Magnification devices for endodontic therapy (2015) · Cochrane | None of the studies fulfilled our inclusion criteria and therefore no data analysis was conducted (three potentially eligible trials were identified from 1234 records; all were excluded). | NR | No studies |
Endodontic therapy performed with one type of magnification device (surgical microscope, endoscope or magnifying loupes) vs Endodontic therapy performed with a different type of magnification device Treatment success (resolution of clinical signs and symptoms with periapical radiographic healing) · Patients of any age who received endodontic therapy and were followed up for at least 1 year after treatment · >=1 year after treatment Magnification devices for endodontic therapy (2015) · Cochrane | None of the studies fulfilled our inclusion criteria; the only trial comparing three magnification devices (Taschieri 2008) was excluded, so no data analysis was conducted. | NR | No studies |
Single full-coverage metal-ceramic crown over composite core and post vs Direct adhesive composite restoration with post (conventional filling, no crown) Non-catastrophic failure of the restoration (requiring further treatment) · People with a permanent tooth that has undergone endodontic (root canal) treatment · 3 years Single crowns versus conventional fillings for the restoration of root‐filled teeth (2015) · Cochrane | RR 0.33 [0.04, 3.05] | 1 study · 117 participants | Very low |
Endodontic therapy performed with one type of magnification device (surgical microscope, endoscope or magnifying loupes) vs Endodontic therapy performed with a different type of magnification device Quality of visualisation of root canal anatomy and morphology · Patients of any age who received endodontic therapy and were followed up for at least 1 year after treatment Magnification devices for endodontic therapy (2015) · Cochrane | No included study assessed this outcome; the review notes that such secondary outcomes were only sporadically reported and were never statistically assessed. | NR | No studies |
Endodontic therapy performed with one type of magnification device (surgical microscope, endoscope or magnifying loupes) vs Endodontic therapy performed with a different type of magnification device Removal of broken (fractured) instruments from the root canal · Patients of any age who received endodontic therapy and were followed up for at least 1 year after treatment Magnification devices for endodontic therapy (2015) · Cochrane | No included study assessed this outcome; the review notes that such secondary outcomes were only sporadically reported and were never statistically assessed. | NR | No studies |
Implant-supported crowns after extraction or decoronation of the ankylosed teeth vs Conventional orthodontic treatment or follow-up with no specific treatment for ankylosis Outcome NR · Any patient with ankylosis and displacement of permanent front teeth diagnosed by clinical and radiographic… Interventions for treating traumatised ankylosed permanent front teeth (2015) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | 0 studies | No studies |
Cemented implant crown vs Screw-retained implant crown Mechanical complications / prosthesis failure (4 years) · Patients with single-tooth implants receiving implant crowns; split-mouth · 4 years Interventions for replacing missing teeth: partially absent dentition (2012) · Cochrane | No reports of any mechanical complications or failures with either type of prosthesis (narrative) | 1 study · 12 participants | Ungraded |