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.
47 questions in 6 reviews · cluster CL0253
current versionsNo studies 1 · 2.1%Ungraded 44 · 93.6%Very low 0 · 0%Low 2 · 4.3%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 |
|---|---|---|---|
Selective caries removal with composite resin vs Complete caries removal with composite resin Restoration failure · Children with carious primary teeth after vital or non-vital pulp therapy · 2 to 3 years Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious lesions in pulp treated… (2022) | Relative probability of failure 3.44 | 1 study · 48 participants | Ungraded |
Composite resin vs Compomer Restoration failure · Children with carious primary teeth after vital or non-vital pulp therapy · 2 years Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious lesions in pulp treated… (2022) | Annual failure rate (AFR, %) 0 | 1 study · 84 participants | Ungraded |
Amalgam 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 (%) amalgam 17.5%; composite resin 6.2% | 1 study · 43 participants | Ungraded |
Amalgam vs Resin-modified GIC Restoration failure · Children with carious primary teeth · 1 year, Class II Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious primary teeth without pulp… (2022) | Annual failure rate (%) amalgam 28.0%; RMGIC 16.9% | 1 study · 120 participants | Ungraded |
Bulk-fill composite resin with 15-second dentine etching vs Bulk-fill composite resin with 7-second dentine etching Restoration failure · Children with carious primary teeth · 1.5 years 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 |
Composite resin vs HVGIC Restoration failure · Children with carious primary teeth · 2 years, ART; Class I and II Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious primary teeth without pulp… (2022) | Annual failure rate (%) HVGIC 5.9%; composite resin 6.7% (cumulative) | 1 study · 219 participants | Ungraded |
Amalgam vs Conventional GIC Restoration failure · Children with carious primary teeth · 5 years, Class I and II Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious primary teeth without pulp… (2022) | Annual failure rate (%) amalgam 4.4%; conventional GIC 7.6% | 1 study · 76 participants | Ungraded |
Amalgam vs Compomer 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 (%) amalgam 1.0%; compomer 1.0% | 1 study · 75 participants | Ungraded |
Flowable bulk-fill composite resin vs Compomer Restoration failure · Children with carious primary teeth · 1 year, Class II Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious primary teeth without pulp… (2022) | Annual failure rate (%) compomer 0%; bulk-fill composite resin 0% | 1 study · 32 participants | Ungraded |
Composite resin with beveled cavity margin vs Composite resin without beveled cavity margin Restoration failure · Children with carious primary teeth · 1.5 years, Class I 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 |
Composite resin with etch-and-rinse adhesive vs Composite resin with self-etch adhesive Restoration failure · Children with carious primary teeth · 1.5 years 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 |
Composite resin vs High-viscosity GIC and bulk-fill composite resins Restoration failure · Children with carious primary teeth · 1 year, Class II Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious primary teeth without pulp… (2022) | Annual failure rate (%) HVGIC 2.9%; composite resin 0%; bulk-fill CR1 0%; bulk-fill CR2 0% | 1 study · 30 participants | Ungraded |
Direct composite resin restoration vs Amalgam restoration Restoration failure rate · 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 1.89 [1.52, 2.35] | 2 studies · 921 participants | Low |
Direct composite resin restoration vs Amalgam restoration Restoration failure rate · People with permanent or adult posterior teeth requiring restoration (parallel-group trials involved children aged 6… · Follow-up >= 3 years, Parallel-group and split-mouth trials combined Direct composite resin fillings versus amalgam fillings for permanent posterior teeth (2021) · Cochrane | RR 1.65 [1.13, 2.40] | 8 studies | Ungraded |
Direct composite resin restoration vs Amalgam restoration Restoration failure rate · People with permanent or adult posterior teeth requiring restoration (parallel-group trials involved children aged 6… · Follow-up >= 3 years, Split-mouth trials Direct composite resin fillings versus amalgam fillings for permanent posterior teeth (2021) · Cochrane | RR 1.33 [0.84, 2.11] | 6 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) Retention success rate · Children with primary molars requiring proximal (Class II) restorations · 24 months, Rubber dam isolation: Yes Success rate of proximal tooth-coloured direct restorations in primary teeth at 24 months: a meta-analysis. (2020) | Proportion 0.931 [0.834, 0.973] | 10 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) Marginal integrity 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 0.881 [0.832, 0.916] | 32 (27 observed + 5 imputed) 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) Retention success rate · Children with primary molars requiring proximal (Class II) restorations · 24 months, Reporting bias: No Success rate of proximal tooth-coloured direct restorations in primary teeth at 24 months: a meta-analysis. (2020) | Proportion 0.867 [0.779, 0.924] | 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) Retention success rate · Children with primary molars requiring proximal (Class II) restorations · 24 months, Assessor blinding (triple-blind): Yes Success rate of proximal tooth-coloured direct restorations in primary teeth at 24 months: a meta-analysis. (2020) | Proportion 0.805 [0.674, 0.892] | 16 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) Retention success rate · Children with primary molars requiring proximal (Class II) restorations · 24 months, Assessor blinding (triple-blind): No Success rate of proximal tooth-coloured direct restorations in primary teeth at 24 months: a meta-analysis. (2020) | Proportion 0.934 [0.859, 0.971] | 11 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) Retention success rate · Children with primary molars requiring proximal (Class II) restorations · 24 months, Material type: Resin-based material + self-etching adhesion Success rate of proximal tooth-coloured direct restorations in primary teeth at 24 months: a meta-analysis. (2020) | Proportion 0.824 [0.672, 0.914] | 8 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) Retention success rate · Children with primary molars requiring proximal (Class II) restorations · 24 months, Dentist experience: Non-experienced Success rate of proximal tooth-coloured direct restorations in primary teeth at 24 months: a meta-analysis. (2020) | Proportion 0.554 [0.168, 0.885] | 2 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) Retention success rate · Children with primary molars requiring proximal (Class II) restorations · 24 months, Cavity form: Atraumatic restorative treatment (ART) Success rate of proximal tooth-coloured direct restorations in primary teeth at 24 months: a meta-analysis. (2020) | Proportion 0.649 [0.488, 0.783] | 8 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) Retention success rate · Children with primary molars requiring proximal (Class II) restorations · 24 months, Material type: Open sandwich restoration Success rate of proximal tooth-coloured direct restorations in primary teeth at 24 months: a meta-analysis. (2020) | Proportion 0.950 [0.639, 0.995] | 1 study | 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) Retention 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 0.879 [0.803, 0.928] | 27 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) Retention success rate · Children with primary molars requiring proximal (Class II) restorations · 24 months, Reporting bias: Yes Success rate of proximal tooth-coloured direct restorations in primary teeth at 24 months: a meta-analysis. (2020) | Proportion 0.935 [0.726, 0.987] | 3 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) Retention success rate · Children with primary molars requiring proximal (Class II) restorations · 24 months, Use of coat: Yes Success rate of proximal tooth-coloured direct restorations in primary teeth at 24 months: a meta-analysis. (2020) | Proportion 0.904 [0.474, 0.989] | 3 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) Retention success rate · Children with primary molars requiring proximal (Class II) restorations · 24 months, Material type: Resin-based material + total-etching adhesion Success rate of proximal tooth-coloured direct restorations in primary teeth at 24 months: a meta-analysis. (2020) | Proportion 0.949 [0.868, 0.981] | 7 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) Retention success rate · Children with primary molars requiring proximal (Class II) restorations · 24 months, Use of cavity conditioner: Yes Success rate of proximal tooth-coloured direct restorations in primary teeth at 24 months: a meta-analysis. (2020) | Proportion 0.826 [0.605, 0.937] | 10 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) Retention 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 0.839 [0.764, 0.893] | 34 (27 observed + 7 imputed) 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) Retention success rate · Children with primary molars requiring proximal (Class II) restorations · 24 months, Cavity form: Conventional cavity design Success rate of proximal tooth-coloured direct restorations in primary teeth at 24 months: a meta-analysis. (2020) | Proportion 0.936 [0.895, 0.961] | 19 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) Retention success rate · Children with primary molars requiring proximal (Class II) restorations · 24 months, Study design: Randomized controlled trial Success rate of proximal tooth-coloured direct restorations in primary teeth at 24 months: a meta-analysis. (2020) | Proportion 0.854 [0.718, 0.931] | 15 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) Retention success rate · Children with primary molars requiring proximal (Class II) restorations · 24 months, Random assignment: No/Incorrect Success rate of proximal tooth-coloured direct restorations in primary teeth at 24 months: a meta-analysis. (2020) | Proportion 0.897 [0.792, 0.952] | 12 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) Retention success rate · Children with primary molars requiring proximal (Class II) restorations · 24 months, Material type: Resin-modified glass ionomer cement (RMGIC) Success rate of proximal tooth-coloured direct restorations in primary teeth at 24 months: a meta-analysis. (2020) | Proportion 0.956 [0.865, 0.986] | 5 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) Retention success rate · Children with primary molars requiring proximal (Class II) restorations · 24 months, Use of cavity conditioner: No Success rate of proximal tooth-coloured direct restorations in primary teeth at 24 months: a meta-analysis. (2020) | Proportion 0.973 [0.695, 0.998] | 2 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) Retention success rate · Children with primary molars requiring proximal (Class II) restorations · 24 months, Random assignment: Correct Success rate of proximal tooth-coloured direct restorations in primary teeth at 24 months: a meta-analysis. (2020) | Proportion 0.851 [0.716, 0.929] | 15 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) Retention success rate · Children with primary molars requiring proximal (Class II) restorations · 24 months, Dentist experience: Experienced Success rate of proximal tooth-coloured direct restorations in primary teeth at 24 months: a meta-analysis. (2020) | Proportion 0.895 [0.828, 0.938] | 25 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) Retention success rate · Children with primary molars requiring proximal (Class II) restorations · 24 months, Study design: Nonrandomized controlled trial Success rate of proximal tooth-coloured direct restorations in primary teeth at 24 months: a meta-analysis. (2020) | Proportion 0.899 [0.768, 0.961] | 9 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) Retention success rate · Children with primary molars requiring proximal (Class II) restorations · 24 months, Rubber dam isolation: No Success rate of proximal tooth-coloured direct restorations in primary teeth at 24 months: a meta-analysis. (2020) | Proportion 0.847 [0.726, 0.920] | 14 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) Marginal integrity 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 0.898 [0.852, 0.931] | 27 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) Retention success rate · Children with primary molars requiring proximal (Class II) restorations · 24 months, Use of coat: No Success rate of proximal tooth-coloured direct restorations in primary teeth at 24 months: a meta-analysis. (2020) | Proportion 0.854 [0.609, 0.956] | 9 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) Retention success rate · Children with primary molars requiring proximal (Class II) restorations · 24 months, Material type: High-viscosity glass ionomer cement (HVGIC) Success rate of proximal tooth-coloured direct restorations in primary teeth at 24 months: a meta-analysis. (2020) | Proportion 0.671 [0.447, 0.838] | 6 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) Retention success rate · Children with primary molars requiring proximal (Class II) restorations · 24 months, Study design: Noncontrolled trial Success rate of proximal tooth-coloured direct restorations in primary teeth at 24 months: a meta-analysis. (2020) | Proportion 0.892 [0.614, 0.977] | 3 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) Retention success rate · Children with primary molars requiring proximal (Class II) restorations · 24 months, Financial source: Private or mixed Success rate of proximal tooth-coloured direct restorations in primary teeth at 24 months: a meta-analysis. (2020) | Proportion 0.807 [0.482, 0.949] | 5 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) Retention success rate · Children with primary molars requiring proximal (Class II) restorations · 24 months, Financial source: Public Success rate of proximal tooth-coloured direct restorations in primary teeth at 24 months: a meta-analysis. (2020) | Proportion 0.909 [0.785, 0.965] | 12 studies | Ungraded |
Adhesively bonded amalgam restorations in conventional preparations utilising deliberate retention (all bonding agents) vs Traditional non‐bonded amalgam restorations Marginal deterioration of the restoration and fracture of the remaining tooth tissue · 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 | Marginal deterioration of the restoration and fracture of the remaining tooth tissue - Follow‐up: mean 24 months | Study population | Relative effect (95% CI): Not estimable | Number of participants (studies): 31 (1… | 1 study · 31 participants | Low |
Resin composite restorations (filling and bonding systems) containing antibacterial agents vs Composite restorations not containing antibacterial agents Postoperative sensitivity, marginal adaptation, anatomic form and other clinical outcomes (USPHS restoration quality; includes tooth vitality and pulpitis) · Adults and adolescents in any age group with restorations in the permanent dentition and children with restorations in… Antibacterial agents in composite restorations for the prevention of dental caries (2013) · Cochrane | No studies were included in this review, as we were unable to find any trials directly comparing antibacterial containing composites to other active interventions or controls. | 0 studies | No studies |