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. Every word you type has to appear somewhere in the question, and the closest matches are ranked first.
6 questions in 1 reviews · cluster CL0304
current versionsNo studies 0 · 0%Ungraded 6 · 100%Very low 0 · 0%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 |
|---|---|---|---|
Resin-based fissure sealants vs Glass-ionomer cement-based fissure sealants Retention-to-caries risk ratio (RCR) · Patients with fissure-sealed permanent molar teeth · Longest follow-up per trial, Sensitivity analysis Validity of sealant retention as surrogate for caries prevention--a systematic review. (2013) | Mean RCR (retention-to-caries risk ratio); t-test of difference Resin vs GIC difference not statistically significant (p=0.069); sensitivity-analysis mean RCRs not reported | 14 studies | Ungraded |
Glass-ionomer cement-based fissure sealants vs No comparator (within-material surrogate-validity regression) Association between loss of complete retention risk and caries occurrence risk · Patients with fissure-sealed permanent molar teeth · At least 24 months, Main analysis Validity of sealant retention as surrogate for caries prevention--a systematic review. (2013) | Regression slope (ln caries risk on ln retention-loss risk) 0.81 [-0.07, 1.68] | 22 studies · 3768 participants | Ungraded |
Resin-based fissure sealants vs No comparator (within-material surrogate-validity regression) Association between loss of complete retention risk and caries occurrence risk · Patients with fissure-sealed permanent molar teeth · At least 24 months, Main analysis Validity of sealant retention as surrogate for caries prevention--a systematic review. (2013) | Regression slope (ln caries risk on ln retention-loss risk) 0.89 [0.56, 1.23] | 54 studies · 17377 participants | Ungraded |
Glass-ionomer cement-based fissure sealants vs No comparator (within-material surrogate-validity regression) Association between loss of complete retention risk and caries occurrence risk · Patients with fissure-sealed permanent molar teeth · Longest follow-up per trial, Sensitivity analysis Validity of sealant retention as surrogate for caries prevention--a systematic review. (2013) | Regression slope (ln caries risk on ln retention-loss risk) 1.44 [0.71, 2.18] | 14 studies · 2307 participants | Ungraded |
Resin-based fissure sealants vs Glass-ionomer cement-based fissure sealants Retention-to-caries risk ratio (RCR) · Patients with fissure-sealed permanent molar teeth · At least 24 months, Main analysis Validity of sealant retention as surrogate for caries prevention--a systematic review. (2013) | Mean RCR (retention-to-caries risk ratio); t-test of difference Resin mean RCR 9.64 (SD 24.58) vs GIC 13.68 (SD 13.72); p=0.017 | 62 studies | Ungraded |
Resin-based fissure sealants vs No comparator (within-material surrogate-validity regression) Association between loss of complete retention risk and caries occurrence risk · Patients with fissure-sealed permanent molar teeth · Longest follow-up per trial, Sensitivity analysis Validity of sealant retention as surrogate for caries prevention--a systematic review. (2013) | Regression slope (ln caries risk on ln retention-loss risk) 0.53 [-0.27, 1.32] | 14 studies · 3154 participants | Ungraded |