evidencegaps
Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

Refine by population, intervention, comparison or outcome
More filters
Evidence found and GRADE certainty

4,771 questions · 10,185 findings · 893 reviews

Sort:Best matchNewestHighest certaintyDownload CSV
No studies found 2,109 · 20.7%GRADE not reported 1,125 · 11%Very low 2,279 · 22.4%Low 2,514 · 24.7%Moderate 1,709 · 16.8%High 449 · 4.4%

Ranked among the 5,000 newest matching findings; add words or filters to narrow the search.

Resin-modified glass-ionomer cement (RMGIC) restoration vs Amalgam, compomer, composite resin, 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

RMGIC had an annual failure rate of 1.9-16.9% (4 RCTs), lower than amalgam and similar to compomer/composite; low quality of evidence (ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

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

Etch-and-rinse adhesion failed more than self-etch (19.5% vs 7.0% annual failure) in one RCT; low quality of evidence (ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

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

Amalgam restorations in primary teeth showed a wide annual failure rate (1-28%) across 4 RCTs; the evidence is of low quality (high risk of bias; ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

High-viscosity glass-ionomer cement (HVGIC) restoration (conventional restorative approach) vs Compomer, composite resin, or another HVGIC

Treatment failure (annual failure rate) · Children with previously unrestored, vital carious lesions in primary teeth (no pulp therapy); aged 1.5-11 years

High-viscosity GIC had a wide annual failure rate (2.9-25.6%) and was outperformed by compomer/composite in some trials (3 RCTs); low quality of evidence (ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

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

A beveled margin lowered composite resin failure (1.8% vs 3.5% annual failure) in one RCT; low quality of evidence (ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Restorative materials placed by atraumatic restorative treatment (ART); mostly high-viscosity/conventional GIC, also RMGIC, glass carbomer, compomer, composite resin vs Different ART materials or application techniques (e.g., bilayer vs single-step, with vs without cavity conditioner/disinfectant), or composite resin

Treatment failure (annual failure rate) · Children with carious primary teeth treated by atraumatic restorative treatment (hand-instrument caries removal), no pulp therapy

ART restorations (mainly GIC) had a wide annual failure rate (1.2-37.1%) across 10 RCTs, with technique affecting survival; low to unclear quality of evidence (ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

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

Etching dentine for 7 s rather than 15 s lowered bulk-fill composite failure (5.8% vs 16.9% annual failure) in one RCT; low quality of evidence (ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Metal-free single crowns (full-contour zirconia) vs Composite strip crown

Treatment failure (annual failure rate) · Children (aged 3-5.5 years) with early childhood caries in anterior primary teeth (>=2 carious surfaces), no pulp therapy

Zirconia crowns failed less than composite strip crowns (3.3% vs 15% annual failure) in one RCT; low quality of evidence (ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Metal-reinforced glass-ionomer cement (MRGIC) restoration vs Conventional GIC

Treatment failure (annual failure rate) · Children with previously unrestored, vital carious lesions in primary teeth (no pulp therapy); aged 1.5-11 years

Metal-reinforced GIC had a high annual failure rate (29.9%) in a single RCT; low quality of evidence (ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Compomer (C) 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

Compomer had an annual failure rate of 0-14.7% (7 RCTs), comparable to amalgam/RMGIC/composite and better than high-viscosity GIC; low quality of evidence (ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Subgroup analyses: early vs standard initiation of kidney replacement therapy (KRT)

Death by AKI aetiology: non‐surgical causes · AKI

Subgroup analyses: early showed no clear difference in death by AKI aetiology: non‐surgical causes compared with standard initiation of kidney replacement therapy (KRT) (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review

Subgroup analyses: early vs standard initiation of kidney replacement therapy (KRT)

Kidney recovery functionby KRT: continuous KRT · AKI

Subgroup analyses: early showed no clear difference in kidney recovery functionby KRT: continuous KRT compared with standard initiation of kidney replacement therapy (KRT) (moderate certainty).

1 finding from 1 review