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.
65 questions in 20 reviews · cluster CL0292
current versionsNo studies 4 · 6.2%Ungraded 60 · 92.3%Very low 0 · 0%Low 1 · 1.5%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 |
|---|---|---|---|
HVGIC Fuji IX Gold Label vs HVGIC Vitro Molar and Maxxion R Restoration failure · Children with carious primary teeth · 2 years, ART; Class I Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious primary teeth without pulp… (2022) | Annual failure rate (%) Fuji IX 14.7%; Vitro Molar 31.8%; Maxxion R 37.1% | 1 study · 150 participants | Ungraded |
HVGIC Ketac Molar vs Conventional GIC Vitro Molar Restoration failure · Children with carious primary teeth · 1 year, ART; Class I, II, III, and V Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious primary teeth without pulp… (2022) | Annual failure rate (%) HVGIC 17.8%; GIC 26.6% | 1 study · 244 participants | Ungraded |
HVGIC vs Composite resin Restoration failure · Children with carious primary teeth · 3 years, Class II Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious primary teeth without pulp… (2022) | Annual failure rate (%) HVGIC 6.1%; composite resin 1.7% | 1 study · 87 participants | Ungraded |
HVGIC Fuji IX vs HVGIC Amalgomer CR Restoration failure · Children with carious primary teeth · 1 year, ART; Class I and II Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious primary teeth without pulp… (2022) | Annual failure rate (%) Fuji IX 9.0%; Amalgomer CR 4.0% (cumulative) | 1 study · 100 participants | Ungraded |
Compomer vs HVGIC Equia Forte and Chemfil Rock 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 3.6%; HVGIC 25.6% and 13.4% | 1 study · 63 participants | Ungraded |
Compomer vs Composite resin Restoration failure · Children with carious primary teeth · 1 year, Class I, II, III, and V Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious primary teeth without pulp… (2022) | Annual failure rate (%) compomer 1.7%; composite resin 1.7% | 1 study · 36 participants | Ungraded |
Conventional compomer vs Colored 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 (%) Compoglass F 4.3%; Twinky Star 7.0% | 1 study · 98 participants | Ungraded |
Flowable resin composite vs Fluoride-releasing resin-based sealant Retention of sealant (complete or partial retention) · Children who were regular dental attenders with caries-free first or second primary molars (public health service… · 12 months Sealants for preventing dental caries in primary teeth (2022) · Cochrane | Effect estimate not calculable. All sealants were completely or partially retained; 40 (1 RCT). Flowable composite: 39/40 completely retained (1 partially lost) at 6 months; resin-based: 33 completely and 7 partially… | 1 study · 40 participants | Low |
Glass carbomer vs Resin-modified GIC and composite resin 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 (%) RMGIC 1.9-7.5%; glass carbomer 5.8-46.2%; composite resin 2.1% | 1 study · 50 participants | Ungraded |
HVGIC Vitro Molar vs HVGIC Ketac Molar Easymix Restoration failure · Children with carious primary teeth · 4 years, ART; Class I Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious primary teeth without pulp… (2022) | Annual failure rate (%) Vitro Molar 3.5%; Ketac Molar Easymix 5.8% | 1 study · 25 participants | Ungraded |
HVGIC bilayer insertion and surface coating protocols vs Alternative HVGIC insertion and surface coating protocols Restoration failure · Children with carious primary teeth · 3 years, ART; Class II Clinical effectiveness of restorative materials for the restoration of carious primary teeth without pulp… (2022) | Annual failure rate (%) 32.4%, 13.7%, 18.7%, 13.4% by insertion/coating arm | 1 study · 208 participants | Ungraded |
ARP with xenograft (bone graft) vs Extraction alone Peri-implant marginal bone level changes · Adults aged 18 years or older, in good general health (including well-controlled systemic disease), requiring… · 7 months Interventions for replacing missing teeth: alveolar ridge preservation techniques for dental implant site… (2021) · Cochrane | Peri-implant marginal bone level changes obtained after 7 months (Barone 2012); no statistically significant differences between the two groups (Analysis 1.5) | 1 study | Ungraded |
Surgical removal (extraction) of asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth vs Retention (conservative management) of asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth Other pathological changes associated with retention (pericoronitis, root resorption, cyst formation, tumour formation, inflammation/infection) · Adolescents or adults with asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth Surgical removal versus retention for the management of asymptomatic disease‐free impacted wisdom teeth (2020) · Cochrane | No included studies reported pericoronitis, root resorption, cyst formation, tumour formation or inflammation/infection. | 0 studies | No studies |
Surgical removal (extraction) of asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth vs Retention (conservative management) of asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth Costs (days off work/study; direct costs of retention or removal) · Adolescents or adults with asymptomatic disease-free impacted wisdom teeth Surgical removal versus retention for the management of asymptomatic disease‐free impacted wisdom teeth (2020) · Cochrane | Costs: Not measured. The included studies did not measure days off work/study or direct costs associated with retention or removal of wisdom teeth and treatment of associated symptoms or complications. | 0 studies | No studies |
Low polymerization shrinkage resin composite (silorane, ormocer, bulk-fill or other modified-monomer composite) vs Conventional methacrylate-based resin composite Marginal adaptation (clinically detectable deterioration) · People with permanent posterior teeth restored with class I or II direct restorations · 60 months Meta-analysis of the clinical behavior of posterior direct resin restorations: Low polymerization shrinkage… (2018) | Three articles (four experimental groups) evaluated marginal adaptation after 60 months; two favored the experimental group but the overall meta-analytic effect was not statistically significant. | 3 studies | Ungraded |
Low polymerization shrinkage resin composite (silorane, ormocer, bulk-fill or other modified-monomer composite) vs Conventional methacrylate-based resin composite Marginal adaptation (clinically detectable deterioration) · People with permanent posterior teeth restored with class I or II direct restorations · 36 months Meta-analysis of the clinical behavior of posterior direct resin restorations: Low polymerization shrinkage… (2018) | Five articles (six experimental groups) evaluated marginal adaptation after 36 months; results were mixed and the overall meta-analytic effect was not statistically significant. | 5 studies | Ungraded |
Low polymerization shrinkage resin composite (silorane, ormocer, bulk-fill or other modified-monomer composite) vs Conventional methacrylate-based resin composite Marginal discoloration · People with permanent posterior teeth restored with class I or II direct restorations · 24 months Meta-analysis of the clinical behavior of posterior direct resin restorations: Low polymerization shrinkage… (2018) | Odds ratio (OR) 1.08 [0.64, 1.84] | 6 studies | Ungraded |
Low polymerization shrinkage resin composite (silorane, ormocer, bulk-fill or other modified-monomer composite) vs Conventional methacrylate-based resin composite Retention (restoration loss) · People with permanent posterior teeth restored with class I or II direct restorations · 24 months Meta-analysis of the clinical behavior of posterior direct resin restorations: Low polymerization shrinkage… (2018) | Six articles assessed restoration retention after 24 months; four showed no loss of retention in either group and two favored the control group, with no difference in the overall meta-analytic effect. | 6 studies | Ungraded |
Low polymerization shrinkage resin composite (silorane, ormocer, bulk-fill or other modified-monomer composite) vs Conventional methacrylate-based resin composite Marginal discoloration · People with permanent posterior teeth restored with class I or II direct restorations · 60 months Meta-analysis of the clinical behavior of posterior direct resin restorations: Low polymerization shrinkage… (2018) | Two articles (three experimental groups) evaluated marginal discoloration after 60 months; the meta-analysis showed no difference in the overall effect. | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Low polymerization shrinkage resin composite (silorane, ormocer, bulk-fill or other modified-monomer composite) vs Conventional methacrylate-based resin composite Marginal adaptation (clinically detectable deterioration) · People with permanent posterior teeth restored with class I or II direct restorations · 18 months Meta-analysis of the clinical behavior of posterior direct resin restorations: Low polymerization shrinkage… (2018) | Only two studies, both testing silorane composites, evaluated marginal adaptation after 18 months; one favored the experimental group and one the control group, and the overall meta-analytic effect was not… | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Low polymerization shrinkage resin composite (silorane, ormocer, bulk-fill or other modified-monomer composite) vs Conventional methacrylate-based resin composite Retention (restoration loss) · People with permanent posterior teeth restored with class I or II direct restorations · 12 months Meta-analysis of the clinical behavior of posterior direct resin restorations: Low polymerization shrinkage… (2018) | OR 0.83 [0.33, 2.09] | 11 studies · 1834 participants | Ungraded |
Low polymerization shrinkage resin composite (silorane, ormocer, bulk-fill or other modified-monomer composite) vs Conventional methacrylate-based resin composite Marginal discoloration · People with permanent posterior teeth restored with class I or II direct restorations · 12 months Meta-analysis of the clinical behavior of posterior direct resin restorations: Low polymerization shrinkage… (2018) | OR 1.53 [0.98, 2.41] | 13 studies · 2082 participants | Ungraded |
Low polymerization shrinkage resin composite (silorane, ormocer, bulk-fill or other modified-monomer composite) vs Conventional methacrylate-based resin composite Marginal discoloration · People with permanent posterior teeth restored with class I or II direct restorations · 18 months Meta-analysis of the clinical behavior of posterior direct resin restorations: Low polymerization shrinkage… (2018) | Only two articles, both testing silorane resins, evaluated marginal discoloration after 18 months; one favored the experimental group and one the control group, with the meta-analysis showing no difference in the… | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Low polymerization shrinkage resin composite (silorane, ormocer, bulk-fill or other modified-monomer composite) vs Conventional methacrylate-based resin composite Marginal adaptation (clinically detectable deterioration) · People with permanent posterior teeth restored with class I or II direct restorations · 12 months Meta-analysis of the clinical behavior of posterior direct resin restorations: Low polymerization shrinkage… (2018) | OR 1.77 [1.25, 2.50] | 15 studies · 2280 participants | Ungraded |
Single-stage alginate impression (simplified method) vs Two stage-two step zinc-oxide eugenol (ZoE) traditional method Operator-assessed quality of the denture (retention and stability) · Completely edentulous people · 3 to 6 months Final‐impression techniques and materials for making complete and removable partial dentures (2018) · Cochrane | There was insufficient evidence of a clear difference between groups for operator-assessed quality of the dentures for retention and stability of dentures (Regis 2013). | 1 study | Ungraded |
Low polymerization shrinkage resin composite (silorane, ormocer, bulk-fill or other modified-monomer composite) vs Conventional methacrylate-based resin composite Marginal adaptation (clinically detectable deterioration) · People with permanent posterior teeth restored with class I or II direct restorations · 24 months Meta-analysis of the clinical behavior of posterior direct resin restorations: Low polymerization shrinkage… (2018) | Odds ratio (OR) 1.46 [0.92, 2.33] | 7 studies | Ungraded |
Metal-free implant abutments (zirconia) vs Metal implant abutments (titanium) Marginal bone level change (MBLC) · Adults (18 years or older) with one missing tooth in the aesthetic zone needing an implant-supported single crown on… · 12 months, Distal Metal‐free materials for fixed prosthodontic restorations (2017) · Cochrane | MD -0.05 [-0.15, 0.04] | 2 studies · 47 participants | Ungraded |
Metal-free implant abutments (zirconia) vs Metal implant abutments (titanium) Marginal bone level change (MBLC) · Adults (18 years or older) with one missing tooth in the aesthetic zone needing an implant-supported single crown on… · 12 months, Mesial Metal‐free materials for fixed prosthodontic restorations (2017) · Cochrane | MD -0.39 [-0.43, -0.35] | 2 studies · 47 participants | Ungraded |
NobelActive external connection implants vs NobelActive internal connection implants Marginal bone level change · Adults with missing teeth who received osseointegrated root-formed dental implants, functionally loaded and followed… · 1 year Interventions for replacing missing teeth: different types of dental implants (2014) · Cochrane | MD 0.30 [-0.17, 0.77] | 1 study · 97 participants | Ungraded |
Ankylos Plus (Dentsply) implants vs Seven (Sweden & Martina) implants Marginal bone level change · Adults with missing teeth who received osseointegrated root-formed dental implants, functionally loaded and followed… · 1 year Interventions for replacing missing teeth: different types of dental implants (2014) · Cochrane | MD 0.03 [-0.29, 0.35] | 1 study · 48 participants | Ungraded |
SPI Element sand-blasted acid-etched standard implants vs SPI Element SurfLink-modified implants Marginal bone level change · Adults with missing teeth who received osseointegrated root-formed dental implants, functionally loaded and followed… · 1 year Interventions for replacing missing teeth: different types of dental implants (2014) · Cochrane | MD 0.27 [-0.01, 0.55] | 1 study · 42 participants | Ungraded |
ITI SLA titanium screws vs Southern blasted/etched titanium screws Marginal bone level change · Adults with missing teeth who received osseointegrated root-formed dental implants, functionally loaded and followed… · 1 to 10 years Interventions for replacing missing teeth: different types of dental implants (2014) · Cochrane | MD -0.02 [-0.18, 0.14] | 1 study · 24 participants | Ungraded |
Astra TiO2-blasted titanium screws vs Branemark turned titanium screws Marginal bone level change · Adults with missing teeth who received osseointegrated root-formed dental implants, functionally loaded and followed… · 1 to 5 years Interventions for replacing missing teeth: different types of dental implants (2014) · Cochrane | MD -0.09 [-0.33, 0.15] | 1 study · 65 participants | Ungraded |
MegaGen EZ Plus blasted standard implants vs MegaGen EZ Plus calcium-incorporated (Xpeed) implants Marginal bone level change · Adults with missing teeth who received osseointegrated root-formed dental implants, functionally loaded and followed… · 1 year Interventions for replacing missing teeth: different types of dental implants (2014) · Cochrane | MD 0.04 [-0.13, 0.21] | 1 study · 60 participants | Ungraded |
Branemark Mark IV turned titanium implants vs Branemark Mark IV TiUnite oxidised implants Marginal bone level change · Adults with missing teeth who received osseointegrated root-formed dental implants, functionally loaded and followed… · 1 to 3 years Interventions for replacing missing teeth: different types of dental implants (2014) · Cochrane | MD 0.11 [-0.38, 0.60] | 1 study · 20 participants | Ungraded |
NobelActive internal connection implants vs NobelReplace implants Marginal bone level change · Adults with missing teeth who received osseointegrated root-formed dental implants, functionally loaded and followed… · 1 year Interventions for replacing missing teeth: different types of dental implants (2014) · Cochrane | MD 0.30 [-0.17, 0.77] | 1 study · 97 participants | Ungraded |
NobelReplace Select Tapered implants vs NobelReplace Groovy implants Marginal bone level change · Adults with missing teeth who received osseointegrated root-formed dental implants, functionally loaded and followed… · 1 year Interventions for replacing missing teeth: different types of dental implants (2014) · Cochrane | MD 0.29 [-0.06, 0.64] | 1 study · 62 participants | Ungraded |
NobelActive external connection implants vs NobelReplace implants Marginal bone level change · Adults with missing teeth who received osseointegrated root-formed dental implants, functionally loaded and followed… · 1 year Interventions for replacing missing teeth: different types of dental implants (2014) · Cochrane | MD 0.00 [-0.41, 0.41] | 1 study · 88 participants | Ungraded |
NobelActive internal connection implants vs Nobel Speedy Groovy external connection implants Marginal bone level change · Adults with missing teeth who received osseointegrated root-formed dental implants, functionally loaded and followed… · 1 year Interventions for replacing missing teeth: different types of dental implants (2014) · Cochrane | MD -0.59 [-0.74, -0.44] | 1 study · 34 participants | Ungraded |
Immediate loading vs Early loading Marginal bone level changes · Patients who are having osseointegrated root-form dental implants · 1 year Interventions for replacing missing teeth: different times for loading dental implants (2013) · Cochrane | MD -0.06 [-0.16, 0.03] | 3 studies | Ungraded |
Occlusal loading vs Non-occlusal loading Marginal bone level changes · Patients who are having osseointegrated root-form dental implants · 1 year Interventions for replacing missing teeth: different times for loading dental implants (2013) · Cochrane | MD 0.03 [-0.10, 0.15] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Hyperbaric oxygen (HBO) therapy vs No HBO therapy Radiographic marginal bone level changes · Patients who have had radiotherapy and who have missing teeth that require replacement with osseointegrated dental… Interventions for replacing missing teeth: hyperbaric oxygen therapy for irradiated patients who require… (2013) · Cochrane | Radiographic bone level changes (but not used since extrapolated from oblique lateral radiographs). | 1 study | Ungraded |
Immediate loading vs Conventional loading Marginal bone level changes · Patients who are having osseointegrated root-form dental implants · 1 year Interventions for replacing missing teeth: different times for loading dental implants (2013) · Cochrane | MD -0.10 [-0.20, -0.01] | 9 studies | Ungraded |
Early loading vs Conventional loading Marginal bone level changes · Patients who are having osseointegrated root-form dental implants · 1 year Interventions for replacing missing teeth: different times for loading dental implants (2013) · Cochrane | MD -0.04 [-0.15, 0.07] | 2 studies | Ungraded |
Zygomatic implants without bone grafts (as a complete alternative to any bone augmentation procedure) vs Conventional dental implants in augmented maxillae Implant failure (mobile implants, removal of stable implants due to progressive marginal bone loss or infection, implant fractures) · Participants with an atrophic maxilla who cannot be rehabilitated with conventional dental implants due to lack of… · At least 1 year in function Interventions for replacing missing teeth: dental implants in zygomatic bone for the rehabilitation of the… (2013) · Cochrane | Results (Effects of interventions): we could not identify any eligible randomised controlled trials (RCTs). | 0 studies | No studies |
Low-gold (Midas) or silver-palladium (Albacast) alloy FDP vs High-gold content control alloy (JS C) FDP Visual marginal discrepancy (3 years) · Patients receiving single crowns and FDPs; split-mouth · 3 years Interventions for replacing missing teeth: partially absent dentition (2012) · Cochrane | RR 0.88 [0.06, 12.73] | 1 study · 30 participants | Ungraded |
Subepithelial connective tissue graft (palate) at implant placement vs No augmentation Peri-implant marginal bone level change · Partially edentulous patients receiving posterior mandibular implants Interventions for replacing missing teeth: management of soft tissues for dental implants (2012) · Cochrane | MD 0.17 [-0.10, 0.44] | 1 study · 20 participants | Ungraded |
Alternative alloy FDP (e.g., Ceramalloy II / base-metal / palladium-silver) vs High-gold content control alloy FDP (Olympia) Restoration survival (Ceramalloy II versus Olympia) · Patients receiving crowns and FDPs; split-mouth, 10-year · 10 years Interventions for replacing missing teeth: partially absent dentition (2012) · Cochrane | OR 3.5 [1.4, 8.7] | 1 study | Ungraded |
Flapless implant placement vs Conventional flap elevation Peri-implant marginal bone level change · Patients receiving dental implants Interventions for replacing missing teeth: management of soft tissues for dental implants (2012) · Cochrane | MD -0.05 [-0.25, 0.15] | 1 study · 78 participants | Ungraded |
Titanium framework FDP vs High-gold content alloy framework FDP Unacceptable restoration (poor marginal integrity / restoration removal) · Partially edentulous patients receiving tooth-supported FDPs Interventions for replacing missing teeth: partially absent dentition (2012) · Cochrane | RR 10.23 [1.41, 74.44] | 1 study · 47 participants | Ungraded |