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.
64 questions in 15 reviews · cluster CL0252
current versionsNo studies 22 · 34.4%Ungraded 28 · 43.8%Very low 7 · 10.9%Low 4 · 6.3%Moderate 3 · 4.7%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 |
|---|---|---|---|
Partial pulpotomy with permanent restoration after 7-14 days vs No comparator Clinical and radiographic success rate · Adults aged 18 years or older with mature permanent teeth and carious pulp exposure · Permanent restoration after 7-14 days Partial pulpotomy for carious pulp exposure in adult mature permanent teeth: a systematic review and… (2025) | Success rate (%) 73.6 [66.5, 80.7] | NR | Ungraded |
Partial pulpotomy with one additional day before permanent restoration vs Partial pulpotomy with one fewer day before permanent restoration Clinical and radiographic success rate · Adults aged 18 years or older with mature permanent teeth and carious pulp exposure · Per day of restoration delay, Meta-regression Partial pulpotomy for carious pulp exposure in adult mature permanent teeth: a systematic review and… (2025) | Meta-regression coefficient (per day, proportion scale) -0.088 | NR | Ungraded |
Partial pulpotomy with permanent restoration after more than 14 days vs No comparator Clinical and radiographic success rate · Adults aged 18 years or older with mature permanent teeth and carious pulp exposure · Permanent restoration after more than 14 days Partial pulpotomy for carious pulp exposure in adult mature permanent teeth: a systematic review and… (2025) | Success rate (%) 23.2 [13.4, 33.0] | NR | Ungraded |
Partial pulpotomy with immediate permanent restoration vs No comparator Clinical and radiographic success rate · Adults aged 18 years or older with mature permanent teeth and carious pulp exposure · Immediate restoration Partial pulpotomy for carious pulp exposure in adult mature permanent teeth: a systematic review and… (2025) | Success rate (%) 89.9 [78.5, 99.8] | NR | Ungraded |
Partial pulpotomy with immediate (same-visit) permanent restoration vs Partial pulpotomy with delayed permanent restoration (7-14 days or >14 days) Clinical and radiographic success rate · Adults (>=18 y) with mature permanent teeth and deep carious pulp exposure · >=1 year, Timing of permanent restoration: immediate vs >14 days Partial pulpotomy for carious pulp exposure in adult mature permanent teeth: a systematic review and… (2025) | MD 66.7 | NR | Ungraded |
Indirect restoration placement by undergraduate students vs None Pulp necrosis incidence · Vital teeth · Undergraduate students Incidence and influential factors in pulp necrosis and periapical pathosis following indirect restorations:… (2023) | Proportion 5.68 [3.17, 8.86] | 1604 participants | Ungraded |
Indirect restoration placement by undergraduate students vs None Pulp necrosis incidence · Vital teeth · General practitioners Incidence and influential factors in pulp necrosis and periapical pathosis following indirect restorations:… (2023) | Proportion 4.44 [2.16, 7.49] | 2113 participants | Ungraded |
Indirect restorations vs Follow-up duration Pulp necrosis incidence · Vital teeth · > 5–10 years, > 5–10 years Incidence and influential factors in pulp necrosis and periapical pathosis following indirect restorations:… (2023) | Proportion 5.53 [3.74, 7.64] | 2443 participants | Ungraded |
Ceramic restoration material vs Porcelain-fused-to-metal restoration material Pulp necrosis incidence · Vital teeth · Ceramic Incidence and influential factors in pulp necrosis and periapical pathosis following indirect restorations:… (2023) | Proportion 5.59 [2.89, 9.12] | 460 participants | Ungraded |
Indirect restorations vs Follow-up duration Periapical pathosis incidence · Vital teeth · > 5–10 years, > 5–10 years Incidence and influential factors in pulp necrosis and periapical pathosis following indirect restorations:… (2023) | Proportion 3.88 [1.95, 6.45] | 1864 participants | Ungraded |
Indirect restorations vs None Pulp necrosis incidence · Vital teeth · ≤ 5 years, ≤ 5 years Incidence and influential factors in pulp necrosis and periapical pathosis following indirect restorations:… (2023) | Proportion 3.53 [2.10, 5.31] | 5532 participants | Low |
Composite resin with etch-and-rinse (total-etch) adhesion vs Composite resin with self-etch adhesion (same universal adhesive) Treatment failure (annual failure rate) · Children with moderately deep dentine caries in primary molars, no pulp therapy · 18 months (Lenzi 2017), Adhesive strategy (etch-and-rinse vs self-etch) Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious primary teeth without pulp… (2022) | Annual failure rate (%) etch-and-rinse 19.5%; self-etch 7.0% | 1 study · 44 participants | Ungraded |
Amalgam restoration vs Composite resin, compomer, conventional glass-ionomer cement, or resin-modified GIC (head-to-head RCT comparators) 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 follow-up (4 trials; 1-5 years) Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious primary teeth without pulp… (2022) | Annual failure rate (%) 1-28% | 4 studies | Ungraded |
Composite strip crown (CSC) with a post (microhybrid composite resin, Amelogen) vs Post type: composite post (CP) vs fibre post (FP) vs reverse metal post (RMP) Treatment failure (annual failure rate) · Children with severely decayed maxillary primary incisors treated by pulpectomy (non-vital pulp therapy) · 1 year, Composite post (CP) arm Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious lesions in pulp treated… (2022) | AFR 2.3 | 1 study · 54 participants | Ungraded |
Selective caries removal (SCR) + composite resin vs Complete caries removal (CCR) + composite resin Treatment failure (annual failure rate) · Children with deep dentine caries in primary molars restored with composite resin (indirect pulp treatment; pulpotomy… · 36 months, Complete caries removal (CCR) arm Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious lesions in pulp treated… (2022) | AFR 6.8 | 1 study · 48 participants | Ungraded |
Composite resin with a beveled cavity margin vs Composite resin with no bevel (butt-joint margin) Treatment failure (annual failure rate) · Children with Class-I carious lesions in primary molars, no pulp therapy · 18 months (Oliveira 2008), Cavity margin (bevel vs no bevel) Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious primary teeth without pulp… (2022) | Annual failure rate (%) bevel 1.8%; no bevel 3.5% | 1 study · 32 participants | Ungraded |
Bulk-fill composite resin with 7-second dentine etching vs Bulk-fill composite resin with 15-second dentine etching Treatment failure (annual failure rate) · Children (aged 5-8 years) with Class-II caries in primary molars, no pulp therapy · 18 months (Cavalheiro 2020), Dentine etching time (7 s vs 15 s) Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious primary teeth without pulp… (2022) | Annual failure rate (%) 15 s 16.9%; 7 s 5.8% | 1 study · 62 participants | Ungraded |
Bio-active restorative materials vs Other restorative approaches Clinical effectiveness · Children with carious primary teeth · At least 12 months Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious primary teeth without pulp… (2022) | no estimate extracted | 0 studies | No studies |
Bio-active restorative materials (containing bio-active compounds) vs Any conventional restorative material Treatment failure (planned; no eligible studies) · Children with carious primary teeth after vital or non-vital pulp therapy Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious lesions in pulp treated… (2022) | No studies were found that reported on the use of restorative materials containing bio-active compounds for the restoration of carious primary teeth after vital or non-vital pulp therapy. | 0 studies | No studies |
Compomer (polyacid-modified composite resin) restoration vs Amalgam, RMGIC, HVGIC, composite resin, bulk-fill composite resin, another compomer, or alternative caries management Treatment failure (annual failure rate) · Children with previously unrestored, vital carious lesions in primary teeth (no pulp therapy); aged 1.5-11 years · 12-30 months Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious primary teeth without pulp… (2022) | Annual failure rate (%) 0-14.7% | 7 studies | Ungraded |
Class-I (single-surface) cavity restoration vs Class-II (proximal/multi-surface) cavity restoration Treatment failure (annual failure rate) by cavity class · Children with carious primary teeth restored in Class-I versus Class-II cavities, no pulp therapy · 12-48 months, Cavity class (Class-I vs Class-II) Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious primary teeth without pulp… (2022) | Annual failure rate (%) Class II 5-28.9%; Class I 1.2-14.7% (ART) | NR | Ungraded |
Composite resin restoration (hybrid or bulk-fill) vs Compomer, glass-ionomer/RMGIC, amalgam, 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 (%) hybrid 0-19.5%; bulk-fill 0-16.9% | 11 studies | Ungraded |
New restorative materials with bio-active molecules (bio-active materials, BM) vs Any restorative material or technique Not applicable (no eligible studies) · Children with carious primary teeth (no pulp therapy) Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious primary teeth without pulp… (2022) | The search retrieved no randomized controlled trials on the clinical effectiveness of new bio-active restorative materials for carious primary teeth. | 0 studies | No studies |
Composite strip crown (CSC) with a post (microhybrid composite resin, Amelogen) vs Post type: composite post (CP) vs fibre post (FP) vs reverse metal post (RMP) Treatment failure (annual failure rate) · Children with severely decayed maxillary primary incisors treated by pulpectomy (non-vital pulp therapy) · 1 year, Fibre post (FP) arm Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious lesions in pulp treated… (2022) | AFR 2.2 | 1 study · 54 participants | Ungraded |
Selective caries removal (SCR) + composite resin vs Complete caries removal (CCR) + composite resin Treatment failure (annual failure rate) · Children with deep dentine caries in primary molars restored with composite resin (indirect pulp treatment; pulpotomy… · 36 months, Selective caries removal (SCR) arm Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious lesions in pulp treated… (2022) | AFR 17.1 | 1 study · 48 participants | Ungraded |
Glass carbomer restoration (placed after drilling) vs Composite resin or RMGIC Treatment failure (annual failure rate) · Children with previously unrestored, vital carious lesions in primary teeth (no pulp therapy); aged 1.5-11 years · 12 months (El-Housseiny 2019) Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious primary teeth without pulp… (2022) | Annual failure rate (%) up to 46.2% | 1 study · 50 participants | Ungraded |
Composite strip crown (CSC) with a post (microhybrid composite resin, Amelogen) vs Post type: composite post (CP) vs fibre post (FP) vs reverse metal post (RMP) Treatment failure (annual failure rate) · Children with severely decayed maxillary primary incisors treated by pulpectomy (non-vital pulp therapy) · 1 year, Reverse metal post (RMP) arm Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious lesions in pulp treated… (2022) | AFR 0 | 1 study · 54 participants | Ungraded |
Amalgam (A) vs Preformed metal crown (PMC) Treatment failure (annual failure rate) · Children with carious primary molars treated by pulpotomy (vital pulp therapy) · 1 year, Preformed metal crown (PMC) arm Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious lesions in pulp treated… (2022) | AFR 2.4 | 1 study · 83 participants | Ungraded |
Amalgam (A) vs Preformed metal crown (PMC) Treatment failure (annual failure rate) · Children with carious primary molars treated by pulpotomy (vital pulp therapy) · 1 year, Amalgam (A) arm Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious lesions in pulp treated… (2022) | AFR 14.3 | 1 study · 83 participants | Ungraded |
Non-selective carious tissue removal and conventional restoration (CR) vs Selective carious tissue removal (selective excavation, SE) Failure of therapy · Children and/or adults with permanent or primary teeth, vital (sensitive) pulps, and cavitated or dentine carious… · 12 months, Cavitated but not deep lesions, primary dentition Interventions for treating cavitated or dentine carious lesions (2021) · Cochrane | OR 0.62 [0.21, 1.88] | 2 studies · 204 participants | Very low |
Non-selective carious tissue removal and conventional restoration (CR) vs Selective carious tissue removal (selective excavation, SE) Failure of therapy · Children and/or adults with permanent or primary teeth, vital (sensitive) pulps, and cavitated or dentine carious… · 12-18 months, Deep lesions, permanent dentition Interventions for treating cavitated or dentine carious lesions (2021) · Cochrane | OR 11.32 [1.97, 65.02] | 2 studies · 179 participants | Very low |
Non-selective carious tissue removal and conventional restoration (CR) vs Stepwise carious tissue removal (SW) Failure of therapy · Children and/or adults with permanent or primary teeth, vital (sensitive) pulps, and cavitated or dentine carious… · 6-60 months, Deep lesions, permanent dentition Interventions for treating cavitated or dentine carious lesions (2021) · Cochrane | OR 2.06 [1.34, 3.17] | 3 studies · 398 participants | Moderate |
Non-selective carious tissue removal and conventional restoration (CR) vs Hall Technique (sealing with a preformed metal crown) Failure of therapy · Children and/or adults with permanent or primary teeth, vital (sensitive) pulps, and cavitated or dentine carious… · 30-60 months, Cavitated (not deep) lesions, primary dentition Interventions for treating cavitated or dentine carious lesions (2021) · Cochrane | OR 8.35 [3.73, 18.68] | 2 studies · 249 participants | Low |
Non-selective carious tissue removal and conventional restoration (CR) vs Selective carious tissue removal (selective excavation, SE) Failure of therapy · Children and/or adults with permanent or primary teeth, vital (sensitive) pulps, and cavitated or dentine carious… · 6-36 months, Deep lesions, primary dentition Interventions for treating cavitated or dentine carious lesions (2021) · Cochrane | OR 4.43 [1.04, 18.77] | 4 studies · 265 participants | Very low |
Direct composite resin restoration vs Amalgam restoration Harms: allergic reaction · People with permanent or adult posterior teeth requiring restoration (parallel-group trials involved children aged 6… Direct composite resin fillings versus amalgam fillings for permanent posterior teeth (2021) · Cochrane | We did not find any eligible studies that evaluated allergic reaction or injury (no studies reported on outcomes of relevance to allergic reaction). | 0 studies | No studies |
Direct composite resin restoration vs Amalgam restoration Fracture of restorations · People with permanent or adult posterior teeth requiring restoration (parallel-group trials involved children aged 6… · Follow-up: 5 to 7 years Direct composite resin fillings versus amalgam fillings for permanent posterior teeth (2021) · Cochrane | RR 0.87 [0.46, 1.64] | 2 studies · 921 participants | Low |
Direct composite resin restoration vs Amalgam restoration Harms: injury · People with permanent or adult posterior teeth requiring restoration (parallel-group trials involved children aged 6… Direct composite resin fillings versus amalgam fillings for permanent posterior teeth (2021) · Cochrane | We did not find any eligible studies that evaluated allergic reaction or injury (no studies reported on outcomes of relevance to injury). | 0 studies | No studies |
Non-selective carious tissue removal and conventional restoration (CR) vs Stepwise carious tissue removal (SW) Failure of therapy · Children and/or adults with permanent or primary teeth, vital (sensitive) pulps, and cavitated or dentine carious… · 12 months, Deep lesions, primary dentition Interventions for treating cavitated or dentine carious lesions (2021) · Cochrane | OR 2.43 [0.65, 9.12] | 1 study · 63 participants | Very low |
Non-selective carious tissue removal and conventional restoration (CR) vs Non-restorative cavity control (NRCC) Failure of therapy · Children and/or adults with permanent or primary teeth, vital (sensitive) pulps, and cavitated or dentine carious… · 30 months, Cavitated lesions, primary dentition Interventions for treating cavitated or dentine carious lesions (2021) · Cochrane | OR 1.16 [0.5, 2.71] | 1 study · 102 participants | Very low |
Tooth-coloured direct restorative materials (composite, compomer, giomer, RMGIC, HVGIC, open-sandwich) vs No comparator group (single-arm pooled success rate; materials/techniques contrasted via moderator analyses) Anatomic form success rate · Children with primary molars requiring proximal (Class II) restorations · 24 months Success rate of proximal tooth-coloured direct restorations in primary teeth at 24 months: a meta-analysis. (2020) | Proportion 0.901 [0.845, 0.938] | 24 studies | Ungraded |
Tooth-coloured direct restorative materials (composite, compomer, giomer, RMGIC, HVGIC, open-sandwich) vs No comparator group (single-arm pooled success rate; materials/techniques contrasted via moderator analyses) Anatomic form success rate · Children with primary molars requiring proximal (Class II) restorations · 24 months, Trim-and-fill adjusted (publication-bias sensitivity) Success rate of proximal tooth-coloured direct restorations in primary teeth at 24 months: a meta-analysis. (2020) | Proportion 0.876 [0.817, 0.919] | 29 (24 observed + 5 imputed) studies | Ungraded |
Adhesively bonded amalgam restorations in conventional preparations utilising deliberate retention (all bonding agents) vs Traditional non‐bonded amalgam restorations Survival of the restoration · Adults and adolescents with permanent posterior molar and premolar teeth suitable for Class I and II, but excluding… · Mean 24 months Adhesively bonded versus non‐bonded amalgam restorations for dental caries (2016) · Cochrane | Survival of the restoration - Follow‐up: mean 24 months | Illustrative comparative risks: Assumed risk (Control) See comment; Corresponding risk (Adhesive bonding) See comment | Relative effect (95% CI): Not estimable… | 1 study · 31 participants | Low |
Intermediate restorative material (IRM) root-end filling vs SuperEBA Healing - 1 year or longer · People requiring retreatment of periapical lesions (failed root canal therapy) · 1 year or longer Endodontic procedures for retreatment of periapical lesions (2016) · Cochrane | RR 1.11 [0.99, 1.24] | 1 study · 194 participants | Very low |
Intermediate restorative material (IRM) root-end filling vs Gutta-percha Healing - 1 year or longer · People requiring retreatment of periapical lesions (failed root canal therapy) · 1 year or longer Endodontic procedures for retreatment of periapical lesions (2016) · Cochrane | RR 0.92 [0.80, 1.05] | 1 study · 147 participants | Very low |
Repair of a defective resin composite restoration in a permanent molar or premolar tooth (with resin composite) vs Replacement of a defective resin composite restoration in a permanent molar or premolar tooth (with resin composite) Presence of clinical symptoms (pain, swelling, diagnosis of pulpitis, abscess formation) · Adults (16 years or over) with one or more defective resin composite restoration(s) in a molar or premolar tooth/teeth · Medium term (less than 5 years) or long term (5 years and above) Replacement versus repair of defective restorations in adults: resin composite (2014) · Cochrane | No randomised controlled trials were found | 0 studies | No studies |
Repair of a defective amalgam restoration in a permanent molar or premolar tooth (with amalgam) vs Replacement of a defective amalgam restoration in a permanent molar or premolar tooth (with amalgam) Patient satisfaction (measured by patient satisfaction or aesthetic scales) · Adults (16 years or over) with one or more defective amalgam restoration(s) in a molar or premolar tooth/teeth · Medium term (less than 5 years) or long term (5 years and above) Replacement versus repair of defective restorations in adults: amalgam (2014) · Cochrane | No randomised controlled trials were found | 0 studies | No studies |
Repair of a defective resin composite restoration in a permanent molar or premolar tooth (with resin composite) vs Replacement of a defective resin composite restoration in a permanent molar or premolar tooth (with resin composite) Success or failure of restoration (as defined by the USPHS criteria) · Adults (16 years or over) with one or more defective resin composite restoration(s) in a molar or premolar tooth/teeth · Medium term (less than 5 years) or long term (5 years and above) Replacement versus repair of defective restorations in adults: resin composite (2014) · Cochrane | No randomised controlled trials were found | 0 studies | No studies |
Repair of a defective amalgam restoration in a permanent molar or premolar tooth (with amalgam) vs Replacement of a defective amalgam restoration in a permanent molar or premolar tooth (with amalgam) Perioperative or postoperative pain or discomfort · Adults (16 years or over) with one or more defective amalgam restoration(s) in a molar or premolar tooth/teeth · Medium term (less than 5 years) or long term (5 years and above) Replacement versus repair of defective restorations in adults: amalgam (2014) · Cochrane | No randomised controlled trials were found | 0 studies | No studies |
Repair of a defective resin composite restoration in a permanent molar or premolar tooth (with resin composite) vs Replacement of a defective resin composite restoration in a permanent molar or premolar tooth (with resin composite) Further restoration required (repair, restoration, placement of crown/inlay, root filling) · Adults (16 years or over) with one or more defective resin composite restoration(s) in a molar or premolar tooth/teeth · Medium term (less than 5 years) or long term (5 years and above) Replacement versus repair of defective restorations in adults: resin composite (2014) · Cochrane | No randomised controlled trials were found | 0 studies | No studies |
Repair of a defective amalgam restoration in a permanent molar or premolar tooth (with amalgam) vs Replacement of a defective amalgam restoration in a permanent molar or premolar tooth (with amalgam) Success or failure of restoration (as defined by the USPHS criteria) · Adults (16 years or over) with one or more defective amalgam restoration(s) in a molar or premolar tooth/teeth · Medium term (less than 5 years) or long term (5 years and above) Replacement versus repair of defective restorations in adults: amalgam (2014) · Cochrane | No randomised controlled trials were found | 0 studies | No studies |