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.
21 questions in 8 reviews · cluster CL0280
current versionsNo studies 5 · 23.8%Ungraded 15 · 71.4%Very low 1 · 4.8%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 |
|---|---|---|---|
Gamified oral health interventions (mobile apps, serious games, augmented reality, game-based education) vs Conventional or traditional oral health education, or non-gamified interventions (comparator varied; several studies were single-arm/uncontrolled) Engagement / adherence to oral hygiene routines · Children and adolescents aged <=18 years · Post-intervention (predominantly short-term; long-term follow-up in a minority of studies) The Application of Gamification in Children's Oral Health Management: Systematic Review. (2025) | The regular use rate was significantly higher (72.4%) in the gamified mobile health app group than in the nongamified intervention group (48.3%) [Zolfaghari 2021]; quiz-based challenges in mobile apps encouraged higher… | NR | Ungraded |
Digital gamified oral health interventions (mobile apps, serious games, augmented reality) vs Non-digital gamified oral health interventions (card/board games, storytelling, printed aids) Long-term behavior change and overall oral health outcomes · Children and adolescents aged <=18 years · Long-term follow-up (sustained behavior change) The Application of Gamification in Children's Oral Health Management: Systematic Review. (2025) | Digital-based interventions were more effective in fostering long-term behavior change compared with nondigital alternatives and consistently outperformed nondigital alternatives in improving oral health outcomes;… | NR | Ungraded |
Gamified oral health interventions (mobile apps, serious games, augmented reality, game-based education) vs Conventional or traditional oral health education, or non-gamified interventions (comparator varied; several studies were single-arm/uncontrolled) Oral health knowledge · Children and adolescents aged <=18 years · Post-intervention (predominantly short-term; long-term follow-up in a minority of studies) The Application of Gamification in Children's Oral Health Management: Systematic Review. (2025) | The effectiveness of digital-based interventions was generally positive, with 38% (9/24) of the experimental studies reporting improvements in oral health knowledge and behaviors; game-based teaching significantly… | 9 studies | Ungraded |
Gamified oral health interventions (mobile apps, serious games, augmented reality, game-based education) vs Conventional or traditional oral health education, or non-gamified interventions (comparator varied; several studies were single-arm/uncontrolled) Oral hygiene behavior (brushing habits, preventive dental visits, dietary choices) · Children and adolescents aged <=18 years · Post-intervention (predominantly short-term; long-term follow-up in a minority of studies) The Application of Gamification in Children's Oral Health Management: Systematic Review. (2025) | A gesture-based motion-capture game enhanced brushing independence and skill retention (P<.001) [Kang 2021]; 58.8% of caregivers reported their children brushed more often when using gamified applications [France… | NR | Ungraded |
Clinical examination with risk-based recall vs Clinical examination with 24-month recall Oral health knowledge (1-9 scale) · Dentate adults (aged 18 years and older) receiving dental check-ups in UK general dental practices (regular attenders) · 4 years Recall intervals for oral health in primary care patients (2020) · Cochrane | MD -0.01 [-0.05, 0.03] | 1 study · 303 participants | Ungraded |
Clinical examination with risk-based recall vs Clinical examination with 24-month recall Oral health attitudes (1-7 scale) · Dentate adults (aged 18 years and older) receiving dental check-ups in UK general dental practices (regular attenders) · 4 years Recall intervals for oral health in primary care patients (2020) · Cochrane | MD -0.02 [-0.20, 0.16] | 1 study · 304 participants | Ungraded |
Clinical examination with 24-month recall vs Clinical examination with 6-month recall Oral health attitudes (1-7 scale) · Dentate adults (aged 18 years and older) receiving dental check-ups in UK general dental practices (regular attenders) · 4 years Recall intervals for oral health in primary care patients (2020) · Cochrane | MD 0.17 [-0.01, 0.35] | 1 study · 308 participants | Ungraded |
Clinical examination with risk-based recall vs Clinical examination with 6-month recall Oral health attitudes (1-7 scale) · Dentate adults (aged 18 years and older) receiving dental check-ups in UK general dental practices (regular attenders) · 4 years Recall intervals for oral health in primary care patients (2020) · Cochrane | MD 0.04 [-0.04, 0.12] | 1 study · 1607 participants | Ungraded |
Any method, procedure or policy to reduce contaminated aerosols in dental clinics vs Any other method, no treatment or combination of methods Acceptability and feasibility of the intervention to patients and dentists · Dental healthcare providers (dentist, dental surgery assistant, dental hygienist, dental technologist, dental… Interventions to reduce contaminated aerosols produced during dental procedures for preventing infectious… (2020) · Cochrane | no estimate extracted | 0 studies | No studies |
Clinical examination with risk-based recall vs Clinical examination with 6-month recall Oral health knowledge (1-9 scale) · Dentate adults (aged 18 years and older) receiving dental check-ups in UK general dental practices (regular attenders) · 4 years Recall intervals for oral health in primary care patients (2020) · Cochrane | MD -0.01 [-0.03, 0.01] | 1 study · 1604 participants | Ungraded |
Clinical examination with 24-month recall vs Clinical examination with 6-month recall Oral health knowledge (1-9 scale) · Dentate adults (aged 18 years and older) receiving dental check-ups in UK general dental practices (regular attenders) · 4 years Recall intervals for oral health in primary care patients (2020) · Cochrane | MD -0.01 [-0.05, 0.03] | 1 study · 308 participants | Ungraded |
5.3% HP strip vs 5% HP gel in tray Patient comfort / acceptability · Adults (>=18 years) undergoing home-based bleaching (including tetracycline- and smoking-stained teeth, any baseline… Home‐based chemically‐induced whitening (bleaching) of teeth in adults (2018) · Cochrane | MD 1.27 [0.13, 2.41] | 1 study · 28 participants | Very low |
Surgical anchorage (mini-screw or mid-palatal implant) vs Conventional anchorage (headgear, transpalatal/palatal arch, etc.) Patient acceptability · Patients of any age undergoing orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances and requiring anchorage (adolescents to… Reinforcement of anchorage during orthodontic brace treatment with implants or other surgical methods (2014) · Cochrane | Reported narratively in 1 study (Feldmann 2007): limitations in daily life and jaw function were low to moderate throughout the trial with no differences between anchorage groups; impact on mood and appearance peaked… | 1 study · 113 participants | Ungraded |
Dual mini-screw implant vs Single mini-screw implant Patient acceptability · Patients undergoing orthodontic treatment requiring surgical (mini-screw implant) anchorage Reinforcement of anchorage during orthodontic brace treatment with implants or other surgical methods (2014) · Cochrane | Acceptability was not reported in any of the studies comparing two types of surgical anchorage | 0 studies | No studies |
Orthodontic distalising appliance (intraoral or extraoral) vs Untreated control (no treatment) Non-compliance rate of the intervention · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or less at the start of treatment) undergoing orthodontic treatment to… Orthodontic treatment for distalising upper first molars in children and adolescents (2013) · Cochrane | Non-compliance rate was not reported in the studies of this comparison. | 0 studies | No studies |
Intraoral distalising appliance vs Headgear (extraoral appliance) Non-compliance rate of the intervention · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or less at the start of treatment) undergoing orthodontic treatment to… Orthodontic treatment for distalising upper first molars in children and adolescents (2013) · Cochrane | Non-compliance rate not reported ("The remaining secondary outcomes and adverse effects were not reported by these studies"). | 0 studies | No studies |
Intraoral distalising appliance vs Another (different) intraoral distalising appliance Non-compliance rate of the intervention · Children and adolescents (aged 16 years or less at the start of treatment) undergoing orthodontic treatment to… Orthodontic treatment for distalising upper first molars in children and adolescents (2013) · Cochrane | Non-compliance rate not reported ("The remaining secondary outcomes and adverse effects were not reported by these studies"). | 0 studies | No studies |
Systemic oral acyclovir vs Placebo or no treatment Patient or parental satisfaction (tolerance and acceptability of drug) · Children and young adults under 25 years with primary herpetic gingivostomatitis (with or without herpes labialis) Acyclovir for treating primary herpetic gingivostomatitis (2008) · Cochrane | Amir 1997b: no data available. Ducoulombier 1988: tolerance and acceptability of the drug was described as satisfactory, but it was unclear how this was assessed by the trialists. | 1 study | Ungraded |
Antifungal drugs absorbed from GI tract (fluconazole, ketoconazole, itraconazole) vs Placebo or no treatment Good compliance · Patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy or radiotherapy or both Interventions for preventing oral candidiasis for patients with cancer receiving treatment (2007) · Cochrane | RR 1.06 [0.89, 1.27] | 2 studies · 615 participants | Ungraded |
Itraconazole vs Fluconazole Good compliance · Patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy or radiotherapy or both Interventions for preventing oral candidiasis for patients with cancer receiving treatment (2007) · Cochrane | RR 0.95 [0.85, 1.05] | 1 study · 202 participants | Ungraded |
Antifungal drugs absorbed from GI tract vs Antifungal drugs not absorbed from GI tract Good compliance · Patients with cancer receiving chemotherapy or radiotherapy or both Interventions for preventing oral candidiasis for patients with cancer receiving treatment (2007) · Cochrane | RR 1.05 [1.03, 1.08] | 1 study · 820 participants | Ungraded |